ANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD HYDERABAD Vs. ALAPATI MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit, O. S. No. 8 of 1968 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The plaintiff the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board, filed the suit for recovery of possession of certain lands alleging that the said lands were constituted as waqf properties and that the alienations made by one Mohammad Abdul Rahman and his heirs from 1952 to 1954 in favour of each of the defendants 1 to 16 were void and not binding on the plaintiff. The relevant paragraphs in the plaint read as follows:-- "3. The inam lands covered by R. S. Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271, 272 of Pasivedala village measuring Ac. 17-05, Ac. 15-74, Ac. 26-30, Ac. 14-18, and Ac. 26-05 and by R. S. Nos. 254/3,255/1,255/2, 255/3,254, 191, 193, 194 and 195 measuring Ac. 1-80, Ac. 7-29, Ac. 0-91, Ac. 1-18, Ac. 8-49, Ac. 20-56, Ac. 26-10, Ac. 25-02 and Ac. 4-59 cents are waqf properties having been endowed for the support of and services in the mosque at Aurangabad village, Kovvur Taluk, West Godavari District. The income of the said lands were utilised for the support, of and services in the said mosque of Aurangabad, Kowur, taluk West Godavari district for over 200 years 4. After the constitution of Wakf Board under the Waqf Act, 1954 (Act 20 of 1954 Central) the Waqf Board notified the said lands to be Want properties by a notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part II dated 19-4-1962 (Pp 440 and 441;. 5. Sri Mohammed Abdul Rahaman and his heirs alienated Ac. 13-11 cents in the above said numbers from 1952 to 1954 in favour of each of the defendants 1 to 16. The said alienations being alienations of portions of Waqf properties, they are void and not binding on the plaintiff. xx xx xx 8. The cause of action for the suit has arisen on 19-4-1972 when the suit schedule properties were notified as Waqf properties and on several dates when the Mutawalli and his heirs or representatives alienated the suit schedule properties from 1952 to 1954 to several of the defendants and on all such dates of alienation when the defendants were in unlawful occupation of the suit land and when the said alienations are void and not binding on the plaintiff. On 1-8-1967 when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice demanding delivery of possession and no compliance to it is made within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court at Pasivedala and Vemulluru, Kowur Taluk where the suit schedule lands are situated. XX XX xX 10. The plaintiff therefore prays that this Honble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff. 1. for the recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties after ejecting the defendants therefrom. 2. for costs of the suit. 3. for such other and further reliefs as are necessary in the circumstances of the case. The other paragraphs of the plaint are omitted as not necessary.

(2.) The 10th defendant filed an application I. A. No. 1353/1968 stating that the averments made in the plaint and the schedule appended thereto are vague and do not furnish any details with regard to the description of the lands or their boundaries or the villages in which they are situated or the persons who are alleged to be in possession of the said lands or the dates of the alienations of the said lands and the persons who alienated the said lands, and therefore the plaintiff should be called upon to furnish full particulars. That application was filed under Order VI, Rule 5 read with Section 151, C. P. C. The application was heard on 11-12-1968 and the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order directing the plaintiff to furnish full particulars on or before 1-1-1969 and that in default the suit shall stand dismissed with costs. This order was not complied with by the plaintiff. The suit was then posted for hearing to 2-1-1969. On that day, the learned Judge dismissed the suit with costs, as the terms of the order in I. A. 1358 of 1968 were not complied with; it is against this order that this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Sri Munwar Ali Baig contended that on 1-1-1969 the plaintiff filed an application for extension of time and also a statement on 2-1-1969 furnishing the particulars with regard to some of the lands mentioned in the plaint schedule, and the lower Court should have therefore extended the time. But on a perusal of the record of the lower Court and the B. Diary we do not find that any such petition or statement was filed by the plaintiff on 1-1-1969 or on 2-1-1969 respectively as contended for by the learned counsel. The learned counsel also, could not substantiate with reference to any record, that any such application or statement was filed in the lower court. Therefore, in the circumstances we do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge committed an error in dismissing the suit.