MOHAMMED ABDUL HAMMED ALIAS KHURSHEED Vs. ZULFIKHAR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revisions are filed by Mohammed Abdul Hameed, alias Khursheed - 1st defendant in O.S.No. 58/98 and plaintiff in O.S.No. 56/98 on the file of A.P. Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad, hereinafter in short referred to as "Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) The plaintiff in O.S.No. 58/98 is the 1st respondent in C.R.P.No. 2827/2003. The Tribunal on the respective pleadings of the parties had settled common Issues at para 9 of the Common Judgment and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record i.e., the evidence of P.W.1 - Revision petitioner herein, and the evidence of D.W. 1 to D.W. 4 and also Exs. A-1 to A-37 and Exs. B-1 to B-22 and Exs. X-1 to X-3, after recording certain findings ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that O.S.No. 56/98 is to be dismissed and O.S.No. 58/98 to be decreed with costs and aggrieved by the Common Judgment delivered by the Tribunal, the Revision petitioner had preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner had submitted that the A.P. State Wakf Board - 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 58/ 98, hereinafter in short referred to as "Board", had taken a specific stand in the written statement that under Section 54(1)of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1955, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience, issued a notice dated 12-5-1998 directing the opposite party to vacate the plaint schedule property and the said party having received the said notice on 13-5-1998 had proceeded with the construction work and the Board also exercised its powers under Section 54(3) of the Act styling the opposite party as encroacher to remove the encroachments and deliver possession of the said property to the Muthawalli. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal had not considered these aspects in proper perspective and had recorded an erroneous finding that the general custodian of the property i.e., the Board, had not initiated any action. The Counsel would maintain that these findings recorded by the Tribunal definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also with all vehemence had contended that even otherwise a Muthawalli as such is entitled to protect the property. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on A.S. Abdul Khader Wakf for Deeni Tamil v. Saber Miah. The learned Counsel while elaborating his submissions had contended that the Tribunal in fact had not properly appreciated the scope and ambit of Section 83 of the Act and had totally erred in holding that the Revision petitioner failed to establish by placing record showing the extent of land attached to the wakf institution. The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to Exs. A-7, A-15 and A-27. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. A-6 and also Exs. X-2 and X-3. The Counsel also had taken this Court though the findings recorded by the Tribunal and had submitted that the Tribunal should have decreed the suit O.S.No. 56/98 filed by the Revision petitioner and should have dismissed the suit O.S.No. 58/98 in stead of recording erroneous findings. The Tribunal had dismissed O.S.No. 56/98 and decreed O.S.No. 58/98. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Sayyed Ali v.A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad.