APEX COURT HELD THAT
1. NATURE OF PROPERTY — SERVICE INAM AS WAKF
Wakf law — Nature of property — Service inam — Where suit property is described in foundational partition deed as “service inam” granted for rendering services to mosque, such land partakes character of Wakf property and is inalienable — Subsequent partition and sale deeds confer no valid title — High Court erred in treating property as private.
(Paras 24, 25)
2. BURDEN OF PROOF — DECLARATION SUIT
Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 101–103 — Suit for declaration — Where plaintiffs seek declaration of title and injunction, burden lies on them to establish lawful title on strength of their own case and not on weakness of defence — Failure to prove valid title is fatal — High Court erred in shifting burden onto defendants.
(Paras 32 to 34)
3. EVIDENTIARY VALUE — ADMISSIONS
Evidence — Admissions — Where plaintiff’s witness admits that property was assigned for rendering services to mosque and no document shows it as personal inam, such admissions, corroborated by documentary evidence, constitute substantive evidence — High Court erred in discarding admissions.
(Paras 26, 27)
4. EFFECT OF PARTITION DEED REFERENCE
Title — Documentary evidence — Where very document relied upon by plaintiffs (partition deed) describes property as service inam, such recital binds claim of title and negatives plea of private ownership — High Court erred in ignoring recitals.
(Paras 24, 25, 28)
5. WAKF CHARACTER — CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE
Wakf Act — Determination of Wakf property — Where survey report, Gazette notification and surrounding material cumulatively indicate property as Wakf, non-production of original title deed is not fatal — Property retains Wakf character — High Court erred in rejecting cumulative evidence.
(Para 29)
6. POSSESSION — NO RELIEF WITHOUT TITLE
Injunction — Possession — Where plaintiff fails to establish lawful title, mere physical possession or cultivation does not entitle him to declaration or injunction — Possession without title is not protected — High Court erred in granting relief on basis of crops.
(Para 35)
7. SCOPE OF REVISION — IMPERMISSIBLE RE-APPRECIATION
Wakf Act — Section 83(9) — Revisional jurisdiction — Where Tribunal findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence, High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings — Interference beyond jurisdiction is unsustainable.
(Para 37)
8. RESULT — RESTORATION OF TRIBUNAL FINDING
Appeal — Wakf property — Where High Court ignored material evidence, misapplied burden of proof and wrongly interfered in revision, its judgment is liable to be set aside and Tribunal decision restored — Appeal allowed.
(Paras 36 to 38)
