1.

Anjuman Islam, Almel, Sindagi Taluk, Vijayapura

District—the appellant herein, which is a body registered in

the year 1965, filed a suit seeking for injunction to restrain

(i) Meerasab S/o. Maktumsab Mujawar (ii) Dastagirsab

S/o.Maktumsab Mujawar and (iii) Iqubal S/o. Meerasab

- 3 -

Mujawar, from interfering with their possession and

vahivat of the Dargah called Shri Peer Galibsaheb Dargah

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Dargah’ for brevity) and in

performing Urs, which was to be held from 31^st of October

1990 to 03^rd of November 1990, every year.

2.

It was contended that the plaintiff was holding the

property at Almel bearing Sy.No.612/B measuring 3 acres

16 guntas and Sy.No.614/B measuring 5 acres 25 guntas

which were all situated at Almel. It was stated that these

lands were included in the Property Register maintained by

the Karnataka Waqf Board, but they were under the

ownership and vahivat of the plaintiff.

3.

It was also contended that there was a Dargah called

Shri Peer Galibsaheb Dargah in Sy.No.612 and every year,

after Deepawali, Urs at the said Dargah was performed,

and the plaintiff, through its Chairman, was conducting

this religious function. It was also contended that the

plaintiff was held to be the owner in possession of

Sy.Nos.612 and 614, where the Dargah was situated, in

- 4 -

O.S. No.1 of 1973 and yet, the above-mentioned

defendants, though unconcerned with the Urs or the

management of the Durgah, were trying to obstruct the

plaintiff contending that they were the Mutawallis, and in

order to prevent this obstruction, they were constrained to

file the suit.

4.

Meerasab and his two brothers—the defendants

contested the suit by filing a written statement. They

admitted that the plaintiff was a registered body under the

name and style of “Anjuman Islam” in the year 1965.

They, however, denied the assertion that they were the

owners of the suit property, while, however, admitting

that this Dargah was situated in R.S. No.612 of Almel

village. It was also admitted that after Deepawali, Urs

was being offered at the said Dargah. The assertion that

the plaintiff was managing the entire performance of Urs

was, however, denied.

5.

It was contended by them that they were the

hereditary Mutwallis of the said Dargah and that they were

- 5 -

the ones performing the religious functions. They stated

that the Dargah was a Waqf institution registered under

the Waqf Act and was the final resting place of the Saint

Peer Galibsaheb, which was in existence for more than

300 to 400 years. It was stated that Sri.Deshmukh of

Almel was the prime devotee and he had donated the land

bearing R.S. No.612 to the deity for performance of Urs.

6.

It was contended that the fact that they were the

hereditary Mutawallis of the said Dargah stood established

by the order of the Civil Court passed in O.S. No.283 of

1954, which had also been confirmed in Appeal No.60 of

1956. It was also asserted that there was a Gazette

Notification in respect of Peer Galibsaheb Dargah and the

Mutawalliship in their favour.

7.

The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence

adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff

had established that they were in possession and

management of the suit properties and the Dargah, and it

proceeded to decree the suit.

- 6 -

8.

Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal

and the Appellate Court, after considering the entire

matter, proceeded to reverse the decree and dismiss the

suit.

9.

The Trial Court took the view that all the records

produced indicated the possession of the plaintiff. It

placed reliance on the fact that the Record of Rights stood

in its name, permission had been granted for construction

of a building and a Certificate had been issued by the Waqf

Board in its favour.

10.

The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the

defendants had made an application to the Waqf Board for

deleting the name of the plaintiff and for entering their

names, and this requ