HYDER SAHIB MOSQUE Vs. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER VILLUPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant institution relied upon an Inam Fair Register entry, which showed the Class of the inam was to the Masjid. THE date on which the grant was made has not been stated. THE extract of the Register on which the appellant relies shows the name Sheik Abdul Wak Physil Khan. THE Mosque also relied upon a notification issued by the Wakf Board some time in the year 1958, in which this land was shown as belonging to the Wakf. THE only witness examined for the Mosque before the Settlement Officer was unable to produce any evidence about the continuous possession of the land by the Mosque. He only produced a book said to contain receipts for having received rent, a certificate from the village officer, and a kist receipt. On the other hand, the persons who had applied for grant of patta deposed before the Settlement Officer and had produded numerous documents which showed that the lands had been sold, to them, or to the predecessors-in-title from a period commencing in the 1930s. "It is apparent that whatever may have been the position prior to 1930, lands were not in the possession of the Mosque after the sale deeds came to be executed by the predecessors-in-title of the claimants for the patta.

(2.) THE Settlement Officer accepted the case of the Masjid while in appeal, its claim was rejected. THE Appellate Authority relied largely on the decision that had been rendered by the civil Court in which it had been held that the Mosque was not the owner of the portion of the survey number in respect of which the plaintiff in the suit before the civil Court had sought a declaration of title. We may notice here that that decision of the Civil Court subsequently came to be affirmed by this Court in Second Appeal in S.A. No. 2105/81 decided on 22.8.1991.

(3.) HAVING regard to the sale deeds in favour of the claimants, and the evidence given by them before the settlement officer, it is reasonable to infer that their predecessors-in-title had been in possession for a continuous period of twelve years prior to April 1960. Though there is no evidence to show that the transfer deed in favour of their predecessors-in-title had been executed by the institution, the institution not being the grantee even in accordance with what is found in the Inam Fair Register, it is unclear as to who was competent to execute the sale deed on behalf of the institution if it were to be assumed that the institution was the grantee. We must, therefore, take an overall view of the available evidence, and in the circumstances, we consider it just to hold that the claimants are entitled to benefit of patta under Section 8(2) (i) of the Act.