A Mutawalli or Mohtmim of a Wakf property serves only as a manager and lacks the legal authority to alienate the property through long-term leases without competent sanction; such transactions are void ab initio and cannot confer title or protection under the Transfer of Property Act.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. The present second appeal arises out of a suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff, which was initially decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 25.01.1992. However, the said decree did not sustain, as the appeal preferred by the defendant Sunder Lal Gupta (now represented through his legal representatives), came to be allowed by the learned first Appellate Court on 12.01.1995, resulting in reversal of the findings recorded by the trial Court and consequent dismissal of the suit.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present second appeal.

3. The trial Court record, as available on the Digital Management System (DMS), has been carefully perused. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. Plaintiff’s Case : The factual matrix reveals that the plaintiff instituted the suit in January, 1969 seeking possession of a portion of land measuring 360 square yards, forming part of Takia Azam Shah bearing Nos. 93–95, situated at Pinjore, District Ambala. The claim of the plaintiff was founded on the assertion that the suit property was a Waqf property vested in the Punjab Waqf Board under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1954 . It was pleaded that the management and control of Muslim trust properties had been transferred to the Waqf Board by the Central and State Governments. On this premise, the plaintiff asserted ownership over the suit property. It was further averred that the defendant was in unlawful and unauthorized possession of the said property and had raised illegal constructions thereupon for running a restaurant/hotel. The defendant, having no legal right to occupy the premises, was allegedly requested to vacate the same, but upon his failure to do so, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit.

5. It is pertinent to note that the suit was initially decreed ex-parte on 27.08.1969. However, on an application filed by the defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 14.06.1983, the ex parte judgment & decree were set aside on 18.05.1987, and the suit was restored to its original position for adjudication on merits.

6.1 Defendant’s Stand : The defendant contested the suit by raising various preliminary objections. The very nature of the suit property as Waqf property was specifically denied. It was asserted that the property was under the management and control of one Rashid Ali, a Mohammedan resident of Pinjore, who was functioning as a Mutawalli (Mohtmim).

6.2 According to the defendant, the said Rashid Ali had leased out the suit land for a period of 99 years to Bakshi Munshi Ram and Khairati Lal vide a registered lease deed dated 22.10.1964, which was duly registered on 27.10.1964. The defendant further pleaded that the aforesaid lessees, namely Bakshi Munshi Ram and Khairati Lal, had subsequently transferred their leasehold rights in favour of Smt. Sushila Aggarwal, wife of the defendant, through a registered sale deed dated 03.09.1968, registered on 05.09.1968. It was further contended that after the demise of Smt. Sushila Aggarwal, the defendant succeeded to her estate by virtue of a Will dated 02.10.1971, thereby becoming the holder of the leasehold rights for the remainder of the 99-year term.

6.3 The defendant thus claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the leasehold rights for valuable consideration. It was also pleaded that substantial construction had been raised on the suit property by Smt. Sushila Aggarwal, including shops and hotel structures, after incurring expenditure to the tune of ₹4,00,000/. On this basis, the defendant sought protection under Sections 50 and 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 asserting that the possession was lawf