Karnataka High Court
Sayyed Sirajuddin S/O Sayyed ... vs Sayyad Shah Ahmed Hussaini And Ors on 7 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057
CRP No. 200019 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 200019 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. SAYYED SIRAJUDDIN,
S/O. SAYYED AMINUDDINSAHEB
BUKHARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
1(a) SAYYED AIJAZAHAMED,
S/O. SAYYAD SIRAJUDDIN BUKHARI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O:BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
NEAR SAGAR AUTOMOBILES,
KRISHNAPPA GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by
SOMANATH
1(b) SAYYAD ILIYAS,
PENTAPPA MITTE
Location: HIGH COURT S/O. SAYYAD SIRAJUDDIN BUKHARI,
OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: KOLHAR BUILDING,
BESIDE DATARI MASJID,
NEAR VRL OFFICE,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. SAYYAD ABDUL RAHIM,
S/O. ABDULRAJAK QUADARI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC: PENSIONER,
R/O: BEHIND GACHI MAHAL,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057
CRP No. 200019 of 2015
TRANSPOSED AS PETITIONER NO.2
BY ORDER DATED 05.07.2019
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NARESH V KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
NOS. 1(a) & 1(b);
SRI R S SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2
(R2 IS TRANSPOSED AS PETITIONER NO.2))
AND:
1. SAYYAD SHAH AHMED HUSSAINI,
S/O. SAYYAD ABDUL HAMEED HUSSAINI,
QUADARI ALONG WITH BAKHARI @ KAZI,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS:
1(a) ABDUL LATIF S/O SYED SHAHA AHMED,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: RETIRED KAZI
R/O GACCHIN MAHAL,
TQ: & DIST. VIJAYAPUR- 581101.
1(b) ISAQ KAZI S/O SYED SHAH AHMED
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL
R/O GACCHIN MAHAL,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR- 586 101.
2. SAYYAD YOUNUS,
S/O. SAYYAD SIRAJUDDIN BUKHARI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: NAVABAG ROAD, SAKAF ROZA,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
3. MRS. ZARINA BEGUM,
W/O. IQBAL PASHA KHAZI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NAVABAG ROAD, SAKAF ROZA,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057
CRP No. 200019 of 2015
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
4. MRS. NILOFER,
W/O. SAYYED JILANI PASHA PEERJAZE,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NAVABAG ROAD,
SAKAF ROZA,
VIJAYAPUR- 586 101.
5. SAYYAD ABDUL RAHIM,
S/O. ABDULRAJAK QUADARI,
TRANSPOSED AS PETITIONER NO.2
BY ORDER DATED 05.07.2019
6. HABIB PATEL MANUR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: CENTERING,
R/O: JALAL BUKHARI DARGAH,
FORT WALL, WARD NO. VI,
NEAR KHB COLONY,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
7. KATTAL RUKUMUDDIN MANNUR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: JALAL BUKHARI DARGAH,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
8. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D P AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) & R1 (B),
NOTICE TO R2 & R4 SERVED,
SRI DESHPANDE GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI VENKATESH C MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6,
SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057
CRP No. 200019 of 2015
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 83(9) OF THE WAKF ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED IN NO.
KWT/BJR/SR/OS-05/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND C/C PRESIDING
OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, THE
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE 'A' AND TO ADD
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT
BENGALURU, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed by the defendants in KWT/BJR/SR//OS-5/2012 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5-8-2015 by the Presiding Officer, Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff under Section 83(9) of the WAKF Act, 1995.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts are as under:
(a) The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants seeking decree of -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 declaration that he is the hereditary Mutavalli-
cum-Sajjad Nashin of the suit Dargah and mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from encroaching the suit property.
(b) He contended that Dargah Hazarat Sayyed Mohammad Bukhari @ Peer Jalal Bukhari @ Peer Jalal Bukhari (hereinafter referred to as 'Dargah') situated in CTS No.1595, SY.No.256/3A of Ward No.VI of Vijayapura, measuring about 10 guntas is the suit property and it now bears CTS No.1595/2. He further contended that he is hereditary Sajjada Nashin -cum-Mutavalli of the said Dargah and is performing the religious functions. It was alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the trespassers and have encroached upon the suit property. The defendant No.5, the Karnataka State Wakf Board -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 recognized him as Sajjada Nashin and appointed him as Mutavalli. It was alleged that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 tried to encroach on the suit property and the defendant No.1 buried his wife in the suit property high handedly by trespassing into the property and therefore, the plaintiff had filed a suit bearing No.KWT/BJR/SR-4-2006 which came to be dismissed on 31-10-2008 holding that the plaintiff had not proved that he is a Mutavalli of the Dargah. He further contended that against the said dismissal, plaintiff preferred Writ Petition No.40761/2008 before this Court and the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 4-11-2011 permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the said suit and to file a fresh comprehensive suit on the same cause of action. Consequently, the judgment of dismissal in the said suit was quashed.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015
(c) He contended that after disposal of the said suit, and during the pendency of Writ Petition No.40761/2008, the plaintiff has been appointed as the Mutavalli of the suit Dargah by defendant No.5 vide its order dated 13-10-2009. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking declaration that he be declared as the Mutavalli- cum- Sajjada Nashin of the Dargah and the encroachment by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 be removed by way of mandatory injunction and they be restrained from encroaching into the suit property. He also contended that the defendant No.5 had filed an application before the ADLR, Vijayapura, for measurement and to know about the extent of encroachment by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. After survey, the ADLR, Vijayapura, gave a report demarcating the area encroached by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. In the meanwhile, one Lala Sab son of Mohiddin Sab Karajagi, had filed OS -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 No.3/2007 seeking declaration that the Certificate of Registration of the Wakf dated 25-8-1996 pertaining to the suit Dargah be declared as null and void and it was dismissed on 25-1-2008.
(d) Similarly, one Mohiddin Baig Rahim Baig Inamdhar had filed OS No.5/2010 to declare that the order dated 3-6-2009 passed by the Law Committee of the Wakf Board in LCC No.3/1996 and the gazette notification thereof appointing the plaintiff as Mutavalli are null and void and the said suit also came to be dismissed on 20-6-2012.
(e) Therefore, the plaintiff contended that he is the Mutavalli and Sajjada Nashin as per the orders passed by defendant No.5 and the said orders of the defendant No.5 are not challenged by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and as such, the suit deserves to be decreed.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015
4. During the pendency of the suit defendant No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendant Nos. 1 (a) to (e).
5. In response to the suit summons, the defendant No.1(a) to (e), defendant No.2 and 5 appeared through their counsel and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were placed exparte.
6. The defendant No. 1(a) to (c) and 1(d) and (e), defendant No.5 filed their written statement and the defendant No.2 did not file any written statement.
7. The defendant No. 1(a) to (e) in their written statement contended that the description of the suit property is not proper and they have annexed a hand sketch map to their written statement. They denied that the plaintiff is the hereditary Sajjada Nashin and Mutavalli of the Dargah and the real name of the plaintiff is Ahamad Sab Abdul Hameed Kazi and he is from Kazi Budihal village situated about 70 miles from Vijayapura and he is a
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 retired government school teacher as admitted by him in the earlier proceedings i.e. OS No.4/2006 before the Tribunal. They contended that the appointment of the plaintiff as Sajjada Nashin cum Mutavalli is illegal and against the Principles of Mohamadden Law and he is claiming himself to be the Sajada Nashin and Mutavalli. They also contended that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are not encroachers of the suit property but admitted that the wife of the defendant No.1 and later the defendant No.1 is also buried in the area which is belonging to the ownership of the defendants. It is contended that though the High Court had quashed the earlier judgment of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff, it had not considered the contentions of the defendants.
8. They also contended that in WP No.21306/1998 the order passed by the Lal Committee dated 4-7-1998 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Law Committee for fresh disposal. Therefore, it is contended that the said order holds good and the defendant No.5
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 could not have passed an order appointing the plaintiff as Mutavalli. It is contended that the defendant No.5 had not followed the procedure laid down under Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is contended that the Certificate of Registration dated 25-8-1986 showed Mohiddin Baig Inamdar is the Mutavalli and he has not been removed from the post of Mutavalli under any procedure contemplated under the Wakf Act and therefore, the plaintiff had no authority to file the suit. They justified the burials in the property contending that it is their property. On these grounds, they sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. The defendant No.5 admitted the plaint averments and stated that the suit property is the wakf property and suitable orders may be passed to protect the wakf property in the interest of justice and equity.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the hereditary Sajjada Nashin-cum-Mutawalli of the suit
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 property and the defendants are trespasser and have encroached the property as contended in the plaint?
(ii) Is he entitled for declaration that he is hereditary Mutawalli-cum-Sajjada Nashin of Dargah property?
(iii) Are the defendants to be restrained by an order of permanent injunction?
(iv) To what relief the parties entitle to?
11. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and two witnesses were examined on his behalf as PWs 2 and 3 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked in the evidence. The defendants examined three witnesses as DWs 1 to 3 and Exs. D1 to 9 were marked.
12. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and proceeded to decree the suit.
13. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) initially approached this Court in revision and later, the respondent No.5 (who was the defendant No.2) was transposed as the petitioner No.2 in this revision.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015
14. The revision petitioners contend that the judgment and decree impugned herein suffers from serious errors of jurisdiction and the plaintiff had not claimed any title in respect of the suit property, which was denied long back. It is contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property and he has not sought for the recovery of the possession and as such, the suit was not maintainable in the present form. They contended that no document of title is produced by the plaintiff to substantiate his contentions over 10 guntas of land. It is contended that the report of the ADLR marked at Ex.P2 is neither admissible in evidence to establish the allegation of encroachment nor it was proved as required under law. It is contended that the letter at Ex.P1 is not admissible in law and it is a bogus letter which would not helps the plaintiff in any way. It is contended that the survey sketch at Ex.P2 was not prepared after issuance of notice to the adjoining owners and therefore, the Tribunal could not have relied on the same. It is contended that the plaintiff had neither based his suit on the same cause
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 of action nor has there been a prayer for declaration of title. It is contended that the suit was barred by limitation. They further contended that the Memorandum of Gift relied by the defendant No.1(a) was ignored by the Tribunal and this has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioners herein. It is contended that the Certificate of Registration of the Wakf and corrigendum thereof are not properly assessed by the Tribunal and therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree impugned in the revision petition.
15. On issuance of notice in this revision, the respondents have appeared through their counsels.
16. The Tribunal records have been secured and the arguments by learned counsels appearing for the revision petitioners and the respondents are heard.
17. The only point that arise for consideration in this revision is,
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is patently illegal, improper and incorrect and as such, it require any intervention by this Court?
18. A revision before the High Court under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act 1995 have limited scope for consideration. The provisions of Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act read as below:
"No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal:
Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit."
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015
19. Regarding the scope of Section 83(9), it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Telangana State Waqf Board and another V/s Mohamed Muzafar,1 In para 16 and 17, it was observed as below:
"16. At the outset it is necessary to indicate that the consideration by the High Court ought not to have been in the nature of reappreciating the evidence which is permissible in an appeal. In a revision petition the scope of consideration is limited and the judgment/order under challenge can be interfered only in the event of there being perversity seen on the face of the order and if the conclusion reached cannot be acceptable to any reasonable person. In the instant case, on the factual aspects as noted, the Tribunal had referred to the evidence including the manner in which the extent of the Waqf property was rectified and indicated as 998.66 sq. yd and also had taken into 1 (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 179
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 consideration the first round of litigation between the State Waqf Board and the father of the respondent wherein the conclusion reached was that the property in question is Waqf property. Therefore, such finding of fact which had been recorded by the Tribunal based on evidence available on record could not have been lightly interfered with by the High Court.
17. In that regard it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board which was authored by one of us (Hemant Gupta, .) wherein the scope of jurisdiction to be exercised under Section 83 of the Waqf Act is crystallised as follows: (SCC p.26, para 22) "22. therefore, when a petition is filed against an order of the Waqf Tribunal before the High Court, the High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is wholly immaterial that the petition was titled as a writ petition. It may be noticed
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 that in certain High Courts, petition under Article 227 is titled as writ petition, in certain other High Courts as revision petition and in certain others as a miscellaneous petition. However, keeping in view the nature of the order passed, more particularly in the light of proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act, the High Court exercised jurisdiction only under the Act. The jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to only examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings recorded by the Waqf Tribunal. The High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act does not act as the appellate court." "
20. In view of the above observations, there is no necessity for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record as if it is an appeal. It is evident that the legislature has not provided any provision whereby the judgment of the Tribunal may be appealed. When there is
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 no provision for appeal, the only remedy is under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act. Obviously the scope of the revision under Section 83(9) is limited and therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the re-appreciation of the evidence. It would suffice to find out whether there is any prima-facie illegality and impropriety committed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion. It is only in this background that the judgment of the Tribunal has to be looked into.
21. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the Ex.P1, letter issued by the defendant No.5 and the map prepared by the ADLR as per Ex.P2 are not proved as required under law. He contends that notice was not issued at the time of the survey and there is no evidence as to at whose instance, the survey was conducted. Ex.P1, letter do not specify that the plaintiff has to take any action against the defendants. Obviously, the remedy of the plaintiff was not by way of the present suit and therefore, the Tribunal has fell into an
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 error. He contends that this Court had permitted the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, but on the other hand, the plaintiff has filed the suit with entirely different causes of action as well as distinct reliefs. He contended that the PW3 was not the person who had surveyed the property and prepared Ex.P2. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have placed reliance on the evidence of PW3. It is pointed out that PW3 had no personal knowledge of the survey or the preparation of Ex.P2. It is submitted that the plaintiff admits that the family members of the revision petitioners, including the defendant No.1 are buried in the suit property and therefore, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is prima facie illegal.
22. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 submitted that the Ex.D9, the order of the Law Committee resulted in a Certificate of Registration being issued as per Ex.P12 and the said notification of the defendant No.5 Wakf Board, was not
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 challenged by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. He contends that though initially the order of the Law committee in LCC 3/1996 was stayed/set aside, subsequent to appearance of the respondents therein, the Law Committee had passed an order and in pursuance to such order, the defendant No.5 had issued the certificate as per Ex.P12. Therefore, when Ex.P12 is not challenged as required under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, the defendants have no locus standie to resist this suit. He further submitted that the Ex.D2 is the Registration Certificate dated 25-8-1986 and subsequent to the order of the LCC, and Ex.P12 Corrigendum Certificate was issued and it was in accordance with law. Therefore, he contend that the defendants could not have resisted the suit. He argued that the defendant No.5 has appointed the plaintiff as Mutavalli and declared the suit property as the Wakf property under the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in decreeing the suit.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015
23. The plaintiff claimed that he was Sajjad Nishin cum Mutavalli of the Wakf and he had filed the suit in OS No.4/2006 which came to be withdrawn with liberty to file a comprehensive suit on the same cause of action. This court by virtue of the order in the W.P.No.40761/2008 permitted the plaintiff to do so. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed. In the said writ petition, it was clearly stated that the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit in view of the order of the defendant No.5 Wakf Board dated 13-10-2009 whereby the plaintiff was appointed as the Mutavalli of the Dargah and the suit property was notified to be the wakf property. Thus, it is evident that the defendants knew about the said contention of the plaintiff.
24. It is also relevant to note that the cause of action in the said suit was in respect of the interference caused by the defendants in managing the property of the Wakf. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff alleged that, the defendant No.1 had forcibly entered into the wakf property and had buried the body of his wife. The defendant Nos. 1(a) (e)
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 also contended later that the body of defendant No.1 was also buried in the same. However, they contended that the said property was their property, which they acquired under a gift thereby they set up a claim over the title of the property.
25. The evidence on record led by the defendants show that they had failed to place sufficient material regarding the title to their property. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in its judgment. None of the documents produced by the defendants show that they had acquired title over the suit property. It is also significant to note that the claim of the defendants 1(a) to
(e) regarding the Mutavalli ship was not in question before the LCC of the defendant No.5. In Ex.D9, the order of the Law Committee of the defendant No.5 clearly traces the right of the plaintiff and one Mohiddin baig and another and came to the conclusion that it is the plaintiff who had shown that he is the hereditary Mutavalli and Sajjada Nashin of the Dargah. Therefore, when the defendants
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 were within the knowledge of such fact, it was incumbent upon them to establish their right before the proper forum.
26. It is also important to note that the proceedings before the defendant No.5 which culminated in corrigendum to the Registration Certificate as per Ex.P12 was not questioned by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The defendants have produced certain documents, which show that certain proceedings were initiated in OS No.3/2014, W.P.No.5539/2007 etc., But these proceedings never declared any right against the plaintiff herein. Therefore, the resistance by the defendants and others to the claim of the Mutavalli ship of the plaintiff ended in vain.
27. It is pertinent to note that Section 63,64 of the Wakf Act, deal with the appointment and removal of the Mutavalli. Section 4 to 6 along with Sections 34 to 39 of the ACT, deal with the enquiry regarding the property belonging to the Wakf and its protection. It is relevant to note that when CTS No. 1595 came to be registered as the Wakf property under Ex.P12, the defendants had not
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 raised any objections regarding the same. In Ex.P12, it is clearly mentioned that it measures 10 guntas and the description of the property is also clear. Therefore, in the face of Ex.P12, the defendants cannot lay a claim that portion of the said property belongs to them. They did not agitate the matter in the manner known to law and even before the Tribunal, they failed to establish their title.
28. A perusal of Ex.P1 show that steps were taken by the Mutavalli and the defendant No.5 to protect the property of the Wakf. In pursuance to it, they requested for a survey and the ADLR , Vijayapura, has surveyed the property of the Wakf and gave a report as per Ex.P2. Ex.P2, is obviously, identifies the property of the Wakf as mentioned in Ex.P12. It says that there is some encroachment by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The suit filed by the plaintiff is precisely in respect of the obstructions of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ex.P2 has to be accepted. Nothing is placed on record by the defendant
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015 Nos. 1 to 4 to show that the portion of the property in CTS No.1595 belongs to them and they had inherited the title to the same. Under these circumstances, the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are proper and correct. At no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the judgment of the Tribunal is illegal or perverse.
29. It is pertinent to note that the recourse to the grievances of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 should have been raised by them as provided under the Wakf Act, 1995. They have not shown that they had raised any dispute under any of the provisions of the Wakf Act, at the time of the enquiry by the defendant No.5. Even after coming to know of such enquiry and the Registration Certificate issued by the defendant No.5 as per Ex.P12, they have not raised any dispute. On the other hand, the plaintiff has raised the dispute and is continuing his claim which he had initiated much prior to the filing of the comprehensive suit. Hence, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment.
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5057 CRP No. 200019 of 2015
30. Thus it is evident that the Tribunal after considering all the relevant aspects, the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed. It has considered the evidence on record in the right perspective. By no means can the impugned judgment be said to be incorrect, illegal or lack propriety.
31. Hence the revision petition is bereft of merits and as such it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn* Sl No.: 1