JANAKI BUSAPPA Vs. A P STATE WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience) by the revision petitioners being aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit O.S. No. 68/2000 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to in short as the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience). The revision petitioners instituted the suit originally praying for the relief of declaration as well questioning the proceedings of defendant No. 1 vide letter No. P2/28/KNL/ 99, dt. 21-8-999 as null and void and inoperative and bad in law. The Tribunal in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 and D.W. 1, marked Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-26, Ex. B-1 to B-10 and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, while answering issue No. 1 answered that the plaintiffs failed to establish their lawful right and possession to grant perpetual injunction. Further while answering issue No. 2 held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the proceedings of defendant No. 1 vide letter No. P/2/28/KNL799, dt. 21-8-99, as null and void, inoperative, bad in law and further while answering issue No. 3 relied upon Madras State of Wakf Board v. Jamal Mohammed,1966 2 MLJ 103 and came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the mandatory provisions of Section 89 of the Act had not been complied with and prior notice had not been given, the said defect cannot be cured and ultimately while answering issue No. 4 dismissed the suit without costs.

(3.) Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners made elaborate submissions touching the merits and demerits of the matter pointed out to Ex. A-2 and Ex. A-3- sale deeds, Ex.A-11 - notice and also specifically pointed out to the discrepancies in Ex. B-2, Ex. B-3, Ex. B-4, Ex. B-5, Ex. B-6, Ex. B-8 apart from the other documents marked as B series and would maintain that this particular survey number does not find a place at all and when that being so, without recording appropriate findings in this regard, just simply relying on those documents and dismissing the suit is bad in law. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the voluminous oral evidence available on record - P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 as well and also further pointed out to the evidence of D.W. 1. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the report submitted by the learned District Judge, Kurnool and would maintain that even if the report if carefully examined, it would support the stand taken by the Wakf board. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel pointed out to the docket proceedings and also certain findings recorded by the Tribunal in relation to the formulation of the issues and would maintain that in the light of the language of Section 85 of the Act since the Tribunal to be taken as a Civil Court, substantially the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure to be followed and the Counsel also pointed out that initially the issues were not settled at all by the Tribunal and after the closure of evidence and after arguments had been submitted, the Tribunal having detected the mistake, at that stage had thought of reopening the matter for the purpose of formulating the issues and subsequent thereto without affording any opportunity in this regard, on the strength of the evidence which had been already adduced by the parties prior to the settlement of the issues, just recording a finding that the parties had not availed the opportunity, proceeded to decide the matter on merits and ultimately dismissed the suit. In the light of the language of Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure if to be read along with Section 83(5) of the Act, this procedure which had been followed would definitely cause serious prejudice to the parties and in this view of the matter, the Judgment under challenge is vitiated. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on MP. Wakf Board v. Subhan Shah D by LRs.,2007 3 SCJ 285