The court underscored the requirement for plaintiffs to prove title and possession to obtain a mandatory injunction regarding property disputes.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1479 OF 2016

ORDER:

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated

21.01.2016 in O.S.No.139 of 2006 on the file of Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereunder the Tribunal passed decree in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suit by granting mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to remove the barbed wire fencing which was erected with stones and to demolish two rooms, other structures and also granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs into property, the defendant in O.S.No.139 of 2006 has filed this civil revision petition under Section 83 (9) of Wakf Act , 1995 and sought for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree and for dismissal of the suit on the following grounds:

The Tribunal committed an error in passing decree in favour of the respondents by granting mandatory injunction and directing the petitioner herein to remove the barbed wire stone fencing and to demolish the structures etc., in the suit schedule property and also by granting perpetual injunction in spite of the petitioner adduced oral and documentary evidence which clinchingly established the contention of the petitioner. The Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the evidence placed before the Court.

2. The petitioner has claimed that the respondents/plaintiffs initially filed a suit for perpetual injunction with a prayer to pass injunction in respect of 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.212 at Jeedimetla village, but they have shown wrong boundaries. The respondents/plaintiffs have no right over the property which was shown in the plaint schedule. The petitioner has claimed that the respondents failed to prove the flow of title in respect of property shown in the schedule. Specific boundaries have been shown in Exs.A1 and A2 whereas the suit has been filed by showing different boundaries and subsequently there was another amendment to the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule. The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner showing different boundaries which are not tallied with the boundaries shown in the plaint. Therefore, it is very clear that the respondents themselves have no knowledge about the correct boundaries of the property. The petitioner has filed number of documents which were marked as Exs.B1 to B35 which categorically shows and establishes that the property shown in the plaint is a patta land, but not wakf property. The petitioner could show that that there are structures existing since a longtime and the petitioner is in actual and physical possession of the property. But, the Tribunal failed to appreciate all these facts and passed Judgment and Decree in favour of the respondents, thereby prayed for setting aside the order and decree.

3. Before adverting to the grounds and contentions raised by the petitioner in the present appeal, as could be seen from the averments made in the plaint and as per other record, it appears that initially the respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit for perpetual injunction in respect of 20 guntas of land situated at Jeedimetla village of Kuthbullahpur mandal on the ground that the property is situated at Sy.No.212 with the following boundaries:

North : Part of Hindu burial ground in SY.No.212 South : Road East : Road West : Road

4. According to the averments made in the plaint, it was the specific contention of the respondent/plaintiffs that the property shown in the plaint schedule is a Gazette notified wakf proper