AP WAKF BOARD Vs. DOWLAT BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions arise in these two appeals which arise out of O.S.No.34 of 1974. A.S.No. 57 of 1976 is preferred by the sole defendant; while A.S.No. 45 of 1977 is preferred by the only plaintiff in the suit. The suit was laid by the plaintiff-Wakf Board, for recovery of possession of the suit property which is of an extent of three acres in Nellore town. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property was endowed since times immemorial for the upkeep and performance of Mouzan service in the Abbas Ali Khan Masjid. The grant was made to the mosque and was meant for ensuring service of Mouzan in the mosque. The person for the time being performing service of Mouzan enjojs the income from the sait property. It is stated that the incumbents ot the offices of Mouzan have unauthoiisedly alienated the suit property in favour of the defendant, who has no right to be in possession thereof. It is submitted that the sale in favour of the defendant is illegal, incompetent and void. The suit was filed within the extended time provided by the Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ths Extension Act).

(2.) The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit property is not a wakf property; it is a personal inam granted specifically to the predecessor-in-title of the defendant's vendor long ago, and was his private property in which he enjoyed absolute rights and title. The defendant further pleaded that she has perfected her title by adverse possession. She stated that she has purchased the suit property under sale deeds marked as Exs.A-3 to A-8, executed during the years 1943 to 1954, and has been in possession thereof since then. She submitted that the Extension Act does not apply to the suit property. A further objection is raised by the defendant to the effect that, inasmuch as in the proceedings taken under the Andhra Inam Abolition Act 1956 it has been held that the suit land does not belong to the plaintiff-Institution and also because patta has been granted to the defendant under the said Act, the plaintiff cannot contend that it is the owner nor can it recover possession from the defendant. An additional written statement was filed by the defendant contending that she has made improvements en the suit land bona fide by spending sabstantial amounts; and that the plaintiff having expressed its willingness to compromise the matter and received a certain amount cannot now resile from the said compromise. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the additional wiitten statement denying the averments therein.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the learned District Judge, Nellore framed appropriate issues and recorded the following findings : (i) That the suit property is a public wakf having been endowed to the mosque viz , Abbas Ali Khan Masjid; and that it is not a grant to a specified person as contended by the defendant. (ii) That the suit is barred by limitation in so far as the land covered by Sale Deeds Exs. A-3 to A-6, is concerned, but it is not barred with respect to the land covered by Exs. A-7 and A-8. (iii) The proceedings under the Abolition of Inams Act do not decide questions of title, therefore, do not preclude the plaintiff from maintaining the suit on the basis of its title. (iv) That the defendant has made improvements over the suit property. He directed that the value of such improvements may be determined before the land, which has been decreed, is delivered into possession of the plaintiff.