SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S. S. Shinde, J
Marathwada Wakf Board – Appellant
Versus
Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 270 of 1995



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Shri Kader
For the Respondent: Shri P. R. Deshmukh

The court asserted that ownership disputes under the Wakf Act do not preclude valid claims from individuals claiming title, regardless of Wakf notifications, provided they can substantiate their ownership.

Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1954 - Section 6 - Ownership and title claims - Dispute arose over property ownership following a government notification declaring property as Wakf - The respondent, a purchaser claiming ownership, contested the notification - The trial court dismissed the suit while the appellate court declared the respondent as owner. (Paras 3, 4, 24)

(B) Second Appeal - Evaluation of substantial questions - The court evaluated the issues of rightful property ownership concerning Wakf laws - Affirming that the respondent, not being a designated party under the Wakf Act, had a right to contest the claim of property ownership, highlighting that the entry in the Wakf Register can be challenged. (Paras 5, 6, 19)

Facts of the case:
The respondent purchased the property from Amir Khan in 1961, but faced a threat to his title due to the government's Wakf property designation. The trial court ruled against the respondent, but the appellate court found in favor citing substantive possession and lack of evidence establishing a Wakf claim.

Findings of Court:
The court held the respondent was entitled to title declaration and dismissed the appeal regarding possession.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondent could claim ownership against the government's Wakf designation and the legal standing under the Wakf Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the respondent's right to obtain title is not excluded by the Wakf designation, and lack of evidence from the appellant further supported the ruling.

Result: Second appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of property ownership dispute under wakf designation. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. final judgment affirming respondent's ownership despite wakf notification. (Para 4 , 22 , 24)
3. legal arguments on property titles concerning wakf rights. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 16 , 18)
4. clarification of non-muslim property rights and wakf challenges. (Para 19 , 21)

1.The brief background of the second appeal is that the respondent No. 1 namely Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri claims that he had purchased property being suit house situated at Manwath Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani from one Amirkhan by a registered sale deed dated 4-9-1961 for Rs.6,000/- . The said Amir Khan had purchased the said property from one Jamalbi widow of Sharfuddin by registered sale - deed dated 11-1-1940.

2. The appellant herein namely Marath - wada Wakf Board had issued a notification dated 5-9-1974 wherein at Sr. No. 19 in addition to the Masjid Chowk and grave yard, a house along with 3 shops which were purchased by the respondent No. 1, were included as Wakf property.

3. The respondent No. 1, who had purchased the said property from said Amir Khan on 4-9-1961 and has been continuously in possession of the said house property and shops, aggrieved by the said Government Gazette Notification threatening his title to his property, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 145/1975 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Bench, Parbhani, seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the said suit house situated at Manwath Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. The learned trial Judge, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief claimed therein in the sense that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim and the suit was dismissed.

4. Aggrieved thereby the respondent No. 1 herein had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 133/1977 before the Court of Assistant Judge, Parbhani. The lower appellate Court by a detailed judgment considering all the issues came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 ought to be declared an exclusive owner of suit house situated at Manwath Tq.Pathri Dist. Parbhani.

5. Marathwada Wakf Board, being aggrieved thereby, field this second appeal and the second appeal was admitted by this Court raising the following substantial questions of law :
"(1) Whether Exhibit 54, extract from the Wakf Register established that the suit property was dedicated to the mosque known as Mahiboob Ganj of Manvath under the Will executed by the deceased Sharfuddin, the then owner of the suit property on 8 Behman 1348 Fasli.
(2) Whether the suit property was rightly entered in the Wakf Register after compliance with rules framed under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations.
(3) Whether the entry in the Wakf Register made in 1349 Fasli had become final under the provisions of the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations."



6. The learned counsel Shri Kader strongly contended that the suit property is a Wakf property especially in view of Exhibit 54 which is an extract of Muntakhab Wakf of endowed property, by Tahsil, and if it is a Wakf property, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim any title over the same.

7. At the out set, there is no dispute with regard to the factual position in the sense that the suit property was purchased by Amir Khan s/o Abdul Kader from Jamalbi widow of Sharfuddin by registered sale deed dated 11-1-1940. Similarly, there is no dispute that the said Amir Khan had sold the suit property for a sum of Rs.6,000/- by a registered sale deed on 4-9-1961 to the respondent No. 1 herein. It is also an admitted position that from 4-9-1961, the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the suit property and that the respondent No. 1 has spent huge amount and has reconstructed house which was in a dilapidated condition.

8. Shri Kader, learned counsel for the appellant, pointed out that the respondent No. 1 could not have filed the suit for declaration of his title and challenging the aforesaid gazette notification dated 5-9-1974 in view of S.6


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top