2026 INSC 413

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 1 of 25

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1946 OF 2013

A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD

THROUGH CHAIRPERSON

… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

JANAKI BUSAPPA

AND OTHERS

…RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. The present Civil Appeal arises out of the final

Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2011

(“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh (“High Court”) in Civil

Revision Petition No.3786 of 2009, whereby the

High Court allowed the revision pet ition

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 2 of 25

preferred by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit,

setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated

04.08.2009 (“Tribunal Judgment”) passed by

the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad

(“Tribunal”) in O.S. No. 68 of 2000.

2. The Appellant herein is Andhra Pradesh State

Wakf Board, represented by its chairperson

(“Wakf Board”), who was the original defendant

no.1. The Respondents were the original

plaintiffs and their legal representatives.

3. The factual matrix, giving rise to the present

appeal, in brief, is that the plaintiffs, namely,

Janaki Busappa and others, instituted O.S. No.

68 of 2000 before the Tribunal, seeking reliefs of

permanent injunction and declaration against

the defendants and later plaint was amended

seeking relief of setting aside letter dated

21.08.1999 issued by the Appellant allotting

land to original Defendant No.2, Jamat Ahle

Hadees, for construction of Edgah.

4. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that they

are the absolute owners and possessors of land

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 3 of 25

admeasuring Ac. 3.00 in Sy. No. 914/B situated

at Kallur Village, Kurnool District (“suit

property”). It was asserted that the said property

was purchased by them under registered sale

deeds executed in the years 1985 and 1996. The

plaintiffs traced their title to a registered

partition deed dated 01.06.1945, contending

that the property originally formed part of a

“personal inam” granted by the erstwhile Nawab

of Kurnool.

5. It was further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 –

A.P. State Wakf Board, Appellant herein, vide

proceedings dated 21.08.1999, purported to

allot the suit land to Defendant No. 2 – Jamat

Ahle Hadees for construction of an Edgah,

which action, according to the plaintiffs, was

wholly illegal, arbitrary and without authority of

law. On this basis, the plaintiffs sought a

declaration that the said proceedings are null

and void, coupled with a decree of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from

interfering with their peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 4 of 25

6. The defendants, on entering appearance, filed

their written statement contesting the claim of

the plaintiffs. It was specifically averred that the

suit land is not a private property but

constitutes “service inam” land attached to

Budda Buddi Mosque, as evidenced by Title

Deed No. 3826, and forms part of registered

Wakf property. The defendants contended that

the partition deed dated 01.06.1945 and the

subsequent sale deeds relied upon by the

plaintiffs are void and confer no valid title,

inasmuch as the land, being service inam, could

not have been alienated. Defendant No.2 was

already in possession of the land and had

commenced construction activities by raising

compound walls for the purpose of an Edgah.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Tribunal framed the following issues for

consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

permanent injunction against the

defendants restraining them from

interfering with their peaceful

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 5 of 25

possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

the relief of declaration to declare the

proceedings of the Defendant No.1 as

null and void.

3. Whether the suit is bad and

maintainable for want of mandatory

notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act,

1995.

8. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence on record, dismissed the

suit vide Judgment and Decree dated

04.08.2009. The Tribunal concluded that the

plaintiffs had failed to establish either lawful

possession or valid title over the suit property.

It was held that the material on record,

including partition deed dated 01.06.1945 and

the admissions of PW-1, indicated that the land

in question was a “service inam” granted for

rendering services to the mosque, thereby forms

part of Wakf land, consequently, disentitling the

alleged vendors from conveying any valid title to

the plaintiffs.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 6 of 25

9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the

plaintiffs preferred Civil Revision Petition No.

3786 of 2009 before the High Court under

Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The High

Court, upon consideration of the matter,

allowed the revision petition and set aside the

findings as recorded by the Tribunal.

10. The High Court held that the defendants had

failed to substantiate their claim that the land

in question is Wakf property, particularly in the

absence of production of Title Deed No. 3826. It

was further held that the plaintiffs had

established their independent title and

continuous possession over the suit property

through the partition deed dated 01.06.1945,

the subsequent registered sale deeds, and

supporting evidence including standing crops

on suit property.

11. Being aggrieved by the finding of the High Court

in the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant has

preferred the present Appeal before this Court.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 7 of 25

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant submits that the Impugned Judgment

is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. He

contends, at the outset, that the High Court has

failed to advert to the foundational document

relied upon by the plaintiffs, namely, the

partition deed dated 01.06.1945, on which the

entire claim of title is based. A perusal of the

said document would demonstrate that the suit-

schedule property is described therein as

“service inam” land granted for rendering

services to Budda Buddi and Asthabal mosques,

and not as “personal inam” as asserted by the

plaintiffs.

13. He further submits that once the land is

admitted being “service inam” in nature, the

same partakes the character of Wakf property,

and the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs

had no transferable or heritable title therein. In

such circumstances, the partition deed dated

01.06.1945, as also the subsequent sale deeds

executed in favour of the plaintiffs, are void ab

initio and incapable of conferring any valid title.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 8 of 25

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this

Court in Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board

1,

wherein it has been held that grants made for

religious or charitable purposes, including

service inams, would clothe the property with

the character of Wakf. It is, therefore, contended

that the suit property, being service inam land,

is inherently Wakf property and cannot be

alienated or transferred.

14. Learned Counsel further submits that the High

Court has committed a manifest error in shifting

the burden of proof upon the defendants,

contrary to the well-established principles

under Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. It is urged that the

plaintiffs, having approached the Tribunal

seeking declaration of title and injunction, were

required to establish their case independently

on the strength of their own evidence, and could

not succeed on the alleged weakness of the

defence. In this regard, reliance is placed on the

1

(1998) 2 SCC 642

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 9 of 25

decision of this Court in P. Kishore Kumar v.

Vittal K. Patkar

2.

15. He further submits that PW-1 i.e. plaintiff

no.11, has admitted that the suit property was

assigned for rendering services to the mosque to

his ancestors and that the partition deed does

not describe the land as personal inam. It is

further admitted that no document has been

produced to substantiate the claim that the

property is personal inam land.

16. It is further contended that the suit schedule

property stands duly notified as Wakf property

in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf

Act, 1995, as is evident from the Gazette

Notification dated 02.05.1963 issued under

Section 5(2) pursuant to a statutory survey

under Section 4, wherein the property in Sy. No.

914/B, covered under Title Deed No. 3826, has

been recorded as Wakf property attached to

Budda Buddi Mosque, and the said notification,

having not been challenged under Section 6,

2

(2024) 13 SCC 553

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 10 of 25

has attained finality and is binding. By a

subsequent notification dated 22.08.1985, the

Appellant assumed direct management of the

property on account of mismanagement by the

mutawallis.

17. Regarding possession of suit property, it is

submitted that the report of the Principal

District Judge, Kurnool dated 06.10.2007, in

compliance with the order of the High Court,

records the existence of minarets, compound

walls and other structures indicative of an

Edgah. In a suit for injunction, the burden lies

on the plaintiff to establish actual and lawful

possession as on the date of institution of the

suit, which burden has not been discharged in

the present case, and in any event, the alleged

possession of the plaintiffs is neither lawful nor

bona fide, having been obtained, if at all, during

the pendency of the proceedings by taking

advantage of interim orders, thereby

constituting an abuse of the process of law.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 11 of 25

18. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that

the plaintiffs have sought to rely upon

additional documents for the first time before

this Court, which were not part of the record

before the courts below, and such reliance is

impermissible in law being contrary to the

principles governing admission of additional

evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, as reiterated by this

Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin

3,

and N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy

4.

19. Learned Senior Counsel rests his submission

stating that the High Court has ignored the fact

that a similar suit, being O.S. No. 1197 of 1999,

in respect of a portion of land in the same survey

number, was dismissed by the competent civil

court holding the property to be Wakf property,

and the said judgment having attained finality,

the same ought to have been taken into

consideration.

3

(2012) 8 SCC 148

4

(2001) 7 SCC 503

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 12 of 25

20. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the Respondents submits that the

proceedings initiated by the Wakf Board in the

year 1999, seeking to allot the suit property for

construction of an Edgah, were wholly illegal

and without authority of law. It is contended

that the Respondents, having purchased the

property under registered sale deeds in the year

1996, were in settled, continuous and peaceful

possession thereof for several decades, to the

knowledge of the Wakf Board. Despite such

knowledge, the Wakf Board neither instituted

any suit for declaration of title nor sought

recovery of possession in accordance with law

but instead attempted to dispossess the

Respondents through executive action and use

of State machinery, which is impermissible in

law. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of

this Court in Wakf Board of A.P. v.

Biradavolu Ramana Reddy

5, to contend that

extinguished rights cannot be revived

subsequently.

5

(1999) 6 SCC 582

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 13 of 25

21. It is further contended that the Wakf Board has

failed to establish its title, inasmuch as it has

relied solely upon Title Deed No. 3826 but has

not produced or proved the same before any

court. The reliance upon Gazette Notification

dated 02.05.1963 is misconceived, as the said

notification does not specifically refer to Survey

No. 914/B. He further contends that earlier

decisions of the High Court concerning the same

Title Deed No. 3826 had gone against the Wakf

Board and were not challenged.

22. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submits that the

reliance placed on the recitals in the partition

deed of 1945 is misplaced, as such recitals

cannot constitute binding admissions against

third parties. It is contended that the said

document is loosely drafted and cannot be

determinative of title. Reliance is placed upon

the judgment of this Court in Nagindas

Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam

6, to contend

that admissions in private documents bind only

the parties thereto.

6

(1974) 1 SCC 242

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 14 of 25

23. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties

and upon perusal of the pleadings and material

on record, the principal question which arises

for consideration is whether the suit schedule

property admeasuring Ac. 3.00 in Sy. No. 914/B

of Kallur Village is Wakf property or not?

24. At the outset, reference must necessarily be

made to the crucial document relied upon by the

Respondents, namely, the partition deed dated

01.06.1945, from which the entire claim of title

is sought to be traced. A bare perusal of the said

document evidently indicates that the lands

covered thereunder, including the suit schedule

property, are described as “service inam” lands

assigned for rendering services to Budda Buddi

Mosque and Asthabal Masjid. Once such a

recital is borne out from the very document on

which the Respondents predicate their title, the

plea that the property constitutes “personal

inam” stands clearly belied. It is undisputed and

settled that lands granted as service inam for

religious or charitable purposes partake the

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 15 of 25

character of endowed property and are

impressed with a public or religious trust,

thereby restricting their alienability.

25. On a careful consideration of the material on

record, it becomes evident that the suit

property, being service inam, could not have

been validly partitioned or subsequently

alienated so as to confer title upon the

predecessors of the Respondents. In this regard,

it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of

this Court in Sayyed Ali (supra) wherein it was

categorically held that a grant of land for

rendering religious or charitable services does

not vest absolute title in the individual, and

such grants, being for purposes recognised

under Muslim law as pious, religious or

charitable, would clothe the property with the

character of Wakf. The said principle squarely

applies in the present case, where the recital in

the partition deed itself establishes the land as

service inam attached to a mosque. The High

Court, however, proceeded to treat the partition

deed as conferring independent title, without

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 16 of 25

adverting to its recitals in their proper

perspective, which, in our opinion, constitutes a

manifest error.

26. The record further discloses that the admissions

of PW-1, who, in categorical terms,

acknowledged that the suit property was

assigned to his ancestors for rendering services

to the mosque and that no document exists to

establish the same as personal inam land.

These admissions, being substantive evidence,

go to the root of the matter and corroborates the

recitals contained in the partition deed dated

01.06.1945. Admissions made by a party,

particularly when consistent with documentary

evidence, cannot be lightly disregarded or

brushed aside. The High Court, however,

brushed aside the said admissions on the

ground that PW-1 lacked personal knowledge,

being not contemporaneous to the execution of

the said partition deed. In our considered

opinion, such an approach is unsustainable.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 17 of 25

27. In this context, the reliance placed on Nagindas

Ramdas (supra) is equally misplaced. While

there can be no dispute with the proposition

that clear and unequivocal admissions made by

the parties in pleadings constitute substantive

evidence, the said decision also recognises that

evidentiary admissions may not be conclusive

but can be evaluated in the context of the overall

material on record. In the present case, the

admissions of PW -1, are required to be

appreciated in the context of the overall material

on record, which, as discussed above, clearly

corroborates with the recitals contained in the

partition deed dated 01.06.1945 and have been

rightly relied upon by the Tribunal. The High

Court, in discarding the same, has failed to

appreciate their evidentiary value in the proper

perspective.

28. Another contention advanced on behalf of the

Respondents that the partition deed is loosely

drafted and therefore not determinative of the

nature of the property cannot be accepted,

inasmuch as the recitals therein are clear and

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 18 of 25

unambiguous in describing the land as service

inam, and no material has been placed on

record to discredit the same.

29. Apart from the above, the Wakf character of the

property is further borne out from the material

placed on record by the Appellant, including the

Survey Commissioner’s Report dated

30.04.1956 and the Gazette Notification dated

02.05.1963 issued under Section 5(2) of the

Wakf Act, 1995, which collectively indicate that

the property forms part of Wakf land attached

to Budda Buddi Mosque. The High Court has

expressed reservations on account of the non-

production of Title Deed No. 3826 and the

absence of specific survey numbers in the

notification. While such deficiencies may be

relevant, the same cannot be viewed in isolation

so as to dislodge the cumulative evidentiary

effect of the material on record. The existence of

Title Deed No. 3826 stands established and

corroborated by endorsement dated 21.01.2003

of the Collector, Kurnool, indicating the inability

to produce the original owing to its brittle

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 19 of 25

condition, that cannot, by itself, be treated as

fatal. A cumulative consideration of the material

on record would indicate that the property bears

the character of Wakf land.

30. Another aspect which requires consideration is

the reliance placed by both parties on earlier

decisions rendered in proceedings concerning

lands in the same or adjoining survey numbers.

In our considered view, such reliance is of

limited assistance in the present case. The

findings recorded in earlier proceedings are

essentially founded upon the evidence adduced

in those cases and cannot be mechanically

applied to a subsequent dispute involving

different parties and independent claims of title.

Each case must necessarily be adjudicated on

the basis of the pleadings and evidence brought

on record therein. In the present case, the

determination of the nature and character of the

suit property must rest upon the evidence led in

the present case.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 20 of 25

31. In the same vein, the reliance placed by the

Respondents on Wakf Board A.P. (supra) to

contend that the Appellant’s right with respect

to the suit property has been extinguished,

which, in our opinion, is misconceived and

inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The

said decision pertains to the question of

limitation in a suit instituted by a Wakf for

recovery of possession from an alienee and

turns upon the applicability of Article 96 of the

Limitation Act in the context of alienation by a

previous manager. The present case, however,

does not involve any such issue of limitation or

recovery from an alienation by a mutawalli or

manager, but rather concerns the anterior

question as to the very nature and character of

the property. The ratio of the said judgment,

therefore, has no application to the controversy

at hand.

32. It is also necessary to advert to the settled

principle that a plaintiff seeking declaration of

title must succeed on the strength of his own

case and not on the weakness of the defence.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 21 of 25

The Respondents, in the present case, having

approached the Tribunal seeking declaration

and injunction, were required to establish a

clear and lawful title to the suit property.

However, as noticed hereinabove, the very

document relied upon by them militates against

their claim. The High Court, in reversing the

findings of the Tribunal, has effectively shifted

the burden upon the Appellant, which, in the

facts of the present case, is legally untenable.

33. At this juncture, reference may be made to the

decision of this Court in P. Kishore Kumar

(supra), wherein it has been reiterated that in a

suit for declaration of title, the burden lies

squarely upon the plaintiff to establish a clear

and legally sustainable title, and such a claim

cannot succeed merely on perceived

weaknesses in the defendant’s case. The failure

to produce cogent title documents is fatal to the

claim.

34. The aforesaid position is further reinforced by

the settled principle under Section 101 of the

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 22 of 25

Evidence Act, 1872 as elucidated by this Court

in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami

7, wherein it

has been held that the burden of proving a fact

always lies upon the party who asserts it, and

until such burden is discharged, the opposing

party is under no obligation to establish its case.

It has been further emphasised that a court

cannot proceed on the weakness of the defence

unless the party on whom the burden lies has

first discharged the same. Applying the said

principle to the present case, the Respondents,

having asserted title to the suit property, were

under a legal obligation to establish the same by

cogent evidence, which, as noticed hereinabove,

they have failed to do.

35. Insofar as the aspect of possession is concerned,

the material on record does indicate that the

Respondents had adduced evidence of

cultivation and existence of standing crops.

However, it is equally well settled that mere

physical possession, in the absence of lawful

title, would not entitle a party to the relief of

7

(2011) 12 SCC 220

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 23 of 25

declaration or injunction. Such possession,

even if assumed, cannot be treated as lawful.

Furthermore, we deem it necessary to make

reference to the report dated 06.10.2007 of the

District Judge, Kurnool, submitted before the

High Court. The said report records the

existence of compound walls, minarets and

other features indicative of an Edgah, lending

support to the case of the Appellant that the

property was being used for religious purposes.

The High Court, in contrast, has inferred

possession in favour of the Respondents

primarily on the basis of standing crops,

without adverting to the legal character of such

possession or the relevant admissible material

on record, which, in our view, is not in

consonance with settled principles.

36. Taking into consideration the above discussion

and material on record, we are of the considered

opinion that the suit schedule property is

“service inam” land attached to a religious

institution and partakes the character of Wakf

property. The Respondents have failed to

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 24 of 25

establish any valid title or lawful possession so

as to entitle them to the reliefs claimed.

37. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are borne

out from comprehensive appreciation of the

evidence adduced before it. However, the High

Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction

has re-appreciated the entire evidence and

substituted its own finding disregarding

material aspects such as the recitals in partition

deed dated 01.06.1945 and the admissions of

PW-1, and has accorded undue significance to

perceived deficiencies in the Appellant’s

evidence proceeding to shift the onus of proof

wrongly upon the defendant.

38. In the light of above, the Impugned Judgment

dated 18.01.2011 passed by the High Court

being unsustainable in law is set aside, and the

Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.2009 passed

by the Tribunal is restored.

39. This Appeal is allowed in above terms.

40. There shall be no order as to cost.

C. A. No. 1946/2013 Page 25 of 25

41. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

.……..………..……………………..J.

[M.M. SUNDRESH ]

.……..………..……………………..J.

[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 24, 2026.