Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

S.A No. 37 of 1984

Judges

S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Acts

6(1) r/w sub-clause (4) of Wakf Act, 1954
SECTION 6 WAKF ACT 1954
WAKF ACT 1954
Section 6(1)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns title to a house (with three shops) at Manwath, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. The chain of transactions in the record is: Jamalbi (widow of Sharfuddin) sold the property to Amir Khan by a registered sale deed dated 11-1-1940; Amir Khan later sold the property to respondent No.1 (Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri) by a registered sale deed dated 4-9-1961 for Rs. 6,000/-. The respondent has been in continuous possession since 4-9-1961 and had reconstructed the house.

On 5-9-1974 the Marathwada Wakf Board issued a gazette notification (Sr. No. 19) including the house and shops as Wakf property. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.145/1975 seeking a declaration of ownership. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim. On appeal, the Court of Assistant Judge, Parbhani (lower appellate Court) allowed Regular Civil Appeal No.133/1977 and declared respondent No.1 the exclusive owner. The Marathwada Wakf Board filed this second appeal, which was admitted by the Court on specified substantial questions of law.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Exhibit 54, an extract from the Wakf Register (Muntakhab Wakf), established that the suit property was dedicated to the mosque known as Mahiboob Ganj of Manwath under a Will executed by the deceased Sharfuddin on 8 Behman 1348 Fasli.
Whether the suit property was rightly entered in the Wakf Register after compliance with rules framed under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations.
Whether the entry in the Wakf Register made in 1349 Fasli had become final under the provisions of the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Marathwada Wakf Board / Shri Kader)

The suit property is a Wakf property, as evidenced by Exhibit 54 (extract of Muntakhab Wakf of endowed property), and therefore respondent No.1 cannot claim title.
Under Section 6 of the Wakf Act (referred repeatedly), suits challenging inclusion in the Wakf list can only be instituted by the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli, or a person interested in the Wakf; respondent No.1 is none of these and therefore his suit was not maintainable.
Even if a person in the categories mentioned could bring such a suit, it had to be filed within one year of the gazette notification; respondent No.1 filed the suit on 3-10-1975, i.e. beyond one year from the notification dated 5-9-1974.
Once property is dedicated as a Wakf, it cannot revert to private ownership or be sold; therefore Jamalbi (the widow) could not have validly sold the property after the alleged creation of Wakf, and later purchasers (Amir Khan and respondent No.1) could not have obtained title.
Relied on Anjuman-E-Islamia v. Sakenabi (AIR 1986 Kant 75) and Board of Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (AIR 1979 SC 289) to support the position limiting who may sue under Section 6.

Respondent's Arguments (Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri / Shri P.R. Deshmukh)

The respondent did not sue under Section 6 of the Wakf Act and, in any event, the Supreme Court's decision in Board of Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (which approved the reasoning in Radhakishan v. State of Rajasthan) holds that a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of property is not required to file within one year; the special limitation rule does not apply to such a person.
Exhibit 54 (the Muntakhab extract) was not corroborated by the original wakfnama or the Will of Mohd. Sharif; the original documents were not produced by the appellant.
There is an order dated 9-9-1350 Fasli (Exhibit 71) from the Nizam State Department of Religious Affairs recording an enquiry and concluding that the wakf proceedings occurred pursuant to "some conspiracy" and directing deletion of the entry (Land Survey No.380 and house No.13) from the wakf register; that order has not been set aside.
Given the foregoing, the property was erroneously entered in the Muntakhab and the lower appellate Court correctly concluded the property was not a Wakf and decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1.
There was no substantial question of law in the second appeal; the central dispute concerned factual determination whether the property was a Wakf.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Anjuman-E-Islamia v. Sakenabi, AIR 1986 Kant 75	Cited by appellant to support the proposition that only the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli, or a person interested in the Wakf may institute a suit under Section 6 of the Wakf Act.	The opinion records the appellant's reliance on this decision but addresses the broader authority of the Supreme Court decisions that govern whether a stranger (non-Muslim in possession) is bound by the one-year limitation. The court did not treat this authority as decisive against the respondent in light of higher authority discussed below.
Board of Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, AIR 1979 SC 289	Interpreted Section 6 of the Wakf Act to the effect that a stranger who is a non-Muslim and in possession of property is not required to file a suit within one year; the list published under Section 5(2) cannot put such a person's title in jeopardy.	The court relied on this Supreme Court decision (and its approval of the Rajasthan High Court reasoning) to conclude the respondent (a Hindu/non-Muslim in possession) was not barred from filing a suit even after the one-year period and therefore could maintain his action challenging the notification and asserting title.
Radhakishan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1	Rajasthan High Court reasoning that Section 6 confines disputes between the Board, the mutawalli and persons interested in a wakf; it did not intend to jeopardise rights of non-Muslims in possession or force them to resort to the one-year special limitation.	The Supreme Court approved this reasoning in the Radha Kishan case; the opinion adopts the combined reasoning to hold that the special limitation rule in Section 6(1) is not applicable to a non-Muslim stranger in possession, supporting respondent's right to sue despite lapse of one year.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded by: (a) ascertaining admitted material facts; (b) examining the legal effect of Section 6 of the Wakf Act and the one-year limitation in light of binding precedent; and (c) assessing the evidentiary record relating to the alleged wakf entry.

Admitted facts the court relied on included the two registered sale deeds (11-1-1940 and 4-9-1961), respondent's continuous possession since 4-9-1961, and the gazette notification dated 5-9-1974. The court noted respondent's reconstruction spending and uninterrupted possession.

On the statutory objection raised by the appellant, the court considered Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act and the one-year proviso. The appellant argued that only the Board, Mutawalli or a person interested in the wakf can file a challenge and, further, that any such suit had to be instituted within one year of publication. The court confronted that submission with the binding authority of the Supreme Court in Board of Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, which approved the Rajasthan High Court's view in Radhakishan v. State of Rajasthan. Those authorities hold that a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of property cannot have his title jeopardised merely because the property appears in the wakf list and is not required to file within one year; the special rule of limitation does not apply to such a person.

The court therefore concluded that respondent No.1 (a Hindu/non-Muslim in possession) was not barred from filing a suit despite not falling within the three categories enumerated in Section 6(1) and despite the suit being filed after the one-year period.

Turning to the evidentiary question whether the property was in fact a wakf, the court examined Exhibit 54 (extract from the Muntakhab) on which the appellant chiefly relied but noted the absence of the original will or wakfnama proving the purported dedication. The court placed significance on Exhibit 71: an order of the Department of Religious Affairs (Nizam State) dated 9-9-1350 Fasli (1941 A.D.) resulting from an inquiry in which it was recorded that the wakf proceedings appeared to have occurred pursuant to a conspiracy and directing deletion of the land and house from the wakf register. That Nizam State order had not been set aside and was on the record.

Given the presence of that order and the lack of primary documents supporting the wakf entry, the lower appellate Court's finding that the property was not a wakf (i.e., that the Muntakhab entry was erroneous) was supported by evidence. The present court observed that in a second appeal (under Section 100 CPC) it cannot disturb concurrent factual findings of the lower appellate Court unless they are perverse or unsupported by any evidence. The court found no perversity or absence of evidence in the appellate court's conclusion.

Holding and Implications

Holding: APPEAL DISMISSED. The second appeal was dismissed and there was no order as to costs. The lower appellate Court's decree declaring respondent No.1 the exclusive owner of the suit house (and allowing the appeal) stands.

Implications:

The direct consequence is that the appellate court's factual finding that the property is not a Wakf property remains intact and respondent No.1's declaration of title is preserved.
The court applied binding precedent (Board of Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and the Rajasthan High Court decision in Radhakishan) to hold that a non-Muslim in possession is not compelled by Section 6(1)'s special limitation to file within one year; therefore respondent's suit was maintainable despite the lapse of the one-year period and despite not being a Wakf Board or mutawalli or a person defined as interested under Section 3.
No new legal precedent was created by this decision; the court dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no substantial question of law and that the appellate court's factual findings were supported by evidence (including the 1941 order removing the entry from the wakf register), and hence outside the scope for reversal on a second appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Show full summary ...

Marawthwada Wakf Board v. Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri And Others

1. The brief background of the second appeal is that the respondent No. 1 namely Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri claims that he had purchased property being suit house situated at Manwath Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani from one Amirkhan by a registered sale deed dated 4-9-1961 for Rs. 6,000/-. The said Amir Khan had purchased the said property from one Jamalbi widow of Sharfuddin by registered sale-deed dated 11-1-1940.

2. The appellant herein namely Marathwada Wakf Board had issued a notification dated 5-9-1974 wherein at Sr. No. 19 in addition to the Masjid Chowk and grave yard, a house along with 3 shops which were purchased by the respondent No. 1, were included as Wakf property.

3. The respondent No. 1, who had purchased the said property from said Amir Khan on 4-9-1961 and has been continuously in possession of the said house property and shops, aggrieved by the said Government Gazette Notification threatening his title to his property, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 145/1975 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Bench, Parbhani, seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the said suit house situated at Manwath Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. The learned trial Judge, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief claimed therein in the sense that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim and the suit was dismissed.

4. Aggrieved thereby the respondent No. 1 herein had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 133/1977 before the Court of Assistant Judge, Parbhani. The lower appellate Court by a detailed judgment considering all the issues came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 ought to be declared an exclusive owner of suit house situated at Manwath Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani.

5. Marathwada Wakf Board, being aggrieved thereby, field this second appeal and the second appeal was admitted by this Court raising the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether Exhibit 54, extract from the Wakf Register established that the suit property was dedicated to the mosque known as Mahiboob Ganj of Manvath under the Will executed by the deceased Sharfuddin, the then owner of the suit property on 8 Behman 1348 Fasli.

(2) Whether the suit property was rightly entered in the Wakf Register after compliance with rules framed under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations.

(3) Whether the entry in the Wakf Register made in 1349 Fasli had become final under the provisions of the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations.”

6. The learned counsel Shri Kader strongly contended that the suit property is a Wakf property especially in view of Exhibit 54 which is an extract of Muntakhab Wakf of endowed property, by Tahsil, and if it is a Wakf property, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim any title over the same.

7. At the out set, there is no dispute with regard to the factual position in the sense that the suit property was purchased by Amir Khan s/o Abdul Kader from Jamalbi widow of Sharfuddin by registered sale deed dated 11-1-1940. Similarly, there is no dispute that the said Amir Khan had sold the suit property for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- by a registered sale deed on 4-9-1961 to the respondent No. 1 herein. It is also an admitted position that from 4-9-1961, the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the suit property and that the respondent No. 1 has spent huge amount and has reconstructed house which was in a dilapidated condition.

8. Shri Kader, learned counsel for the appellant, pointed out that the respondent No. 1 could not have filed the suit for declaration of his title and challenging the aforesaid gazette notification dated 5-9-1974 in view of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, that is say that on two counts under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1956, the respondent No. 1 could not have filed the above suit inasmuch as Section 6(1) contemplates that such a suit could be filed only by the Board i.e Wakf Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested therein i.e any person interested in the said wakf. The other aspect of the objection is that even if such a suit were to be filed as mentioned above by the persons, the said suit ought to be filed within one year from the date of gazette notification. Shri Kader contended that the plaintiff in fact is not a Board and is not the Mutawalli of the Wakf and also is not a person interesed in the Wakf. As such the suit ex facie was not maintainable. Similarly, Shri Kader also contended that the suit was lodged beyond the period of expiry of one year. The gazette notification is dated 5-9-1974, but the suit was filed on 3-10-1975 i.e beyond the period of one year.

9. The main thrust of Shri Kader's argument is that the suit property is a Wakf property in view of the extract of Muntakhab. Shri Kader had referred to the said Exhibit 54 which mentions the name of the Wakf as Vakif as Mr. Mohd. Sharfuddin s/o Sonaji Panmerchant r/o Manwath, the entry in the Exhibit 54 shows that after observing all legal formalities as per the will deed of Mohd. Sharifuddin r/o Manwath, the said property was entered in the Wakf register. One copy of the same with the maps of mosque, shops, house and land was sent to the Collector for entries in Wakf register. Therefore, Shri Kader contended that once this entry is made, the Muntakhab Wakf of endowed property is a sufficient proof of the property to be treated as a Wakf property.

10. Shri Kader also contended that once if it is a Wakf proprty and dedicated as a property, the same will always continue as a Wakf property, it can never be reverted as a private property or sold. Therefore, Shri Kadar, learned counsel, states that once Shri Mohd. Sharfuddin, by his will deed, had created this Wakf, subsequently his widow Jamalbi could not have sold this property to Mr. Amir Khan, who in turn could not have sold it to the respondent No. 1. To put in other words, Jamalbi, the widow of Sharfuddin, had no title or interest in the said property once by the will deed the said proprty was converted into Wakf by Mohd. Sharfuddin, she could not have sold the same and all other subsequent purchasers also could not have got any title to the same.

11. Shri Kader, therefore, contended that the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the suit holding the said property to be a wakf property and that the respondent No. 1 had no title to the same. Shri Kader, the learned counsel, submitted that the entry in the Muntakhab is an exclusive piece of evidence and there is no need to produce any other document that it was a wakf property. Once the said extract was produced, it was sufficient proof enough to establish the same to be a wakf property.

12. Shri Kader, learned counsel for the appellant, relied on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Anjuman-E-Islamia v. Sakenabi, AIR 1986 Kant 75 to contend that no suit could be filed by any person other than Board or Mutawalli of Wakf or any person interested in Wakf. Shri Kader contended that admittedly the respondent No. 1 does not fall under any of the aforesaid three categories and as such the said claim u/S. 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 is ex facie not maintainable as has been held by the Karnataka High Court.

13. Shri Kader, the learned counsel for appellant, also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Board of Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, AIR 1979 SC 289 in support of his contention that only three categories of persons can file a suit u/S. 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, that is to say, the Wakf Board of Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested in the Wakf. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the word “therein” in the expession “any person interested therein” to mean a person interested in the Wakfs which are listed. Therefore, Shri Kader, the learned counsel contends that as the plaintiff herein namely the respondent No. 1, who is neither the Board nor Mutawalli of the Wakf nor person interested in the Wakf, had no authority whatsoever to file the suit u/S. 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 challenging the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra for the purpose of deletion of the entry as aforesaid. In fact, it is relevant to note that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court arose from the judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1, Radhakishan v. State of Rajasthan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court concurs with the Rajasthan High Court as regards the interpretation of Section 6(1) of the said Act to say that only the Board. Mutawalli or any person interested in the Wakf as defined may institute a suit in Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and that he can file such a suit within one year from the date of publication of the list of Wakf.

14. The Rajasthan High Court in the aforesaid judgment — Radhakishan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1, has observed as under at page 7:

“The purpose of S. 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In other words, if there is a dispute whether a particular property is a wakf property or not, or whether a wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf, then the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or a person interested in the wakf as defind in S. 3 may institute suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question. They can file such a suit within one year of the date of the publication of the list of wakfs and if no such suit is filed, the list would be final and conclusive between them.

The very object of the Wakf Act is to provide for better administration and suprvision of wakfs and the Board has been given powers of superintendence over all wakfs which vest in the Board. This provision seems to have been made in order to avoid prolongation of triangular disputes between the Wakf Board, the mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf who would be a person of the same community. It could never have been the intention of the legislature to cast a cloud on the right, title or interest of persons who are not Muslims. That is, if a person who is non-Muslim whether he be a Christian, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Parsi or of any other religious donomination and if he is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest cannot be put in jeopardy simply because that property is included in the list published under sub-s. (2) of S. 5.

The Legislature could not have meant that he should be driven to file a suit in a Civil Court for declaration of his title simply because the property in his possession is included in the list. Similarly, the legislature could not have meant to curtail the period of limitation available to him under the Limitation Act and to provide that he must file a suit within a year or the list would be final and conclusive against him. In our opinion, sub-sec. (4) makes the list final and conclusive only between the Wakf Board, the mutawalli and the person interested in the wakf as defined in Section 3 and to no other person.”

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was in full agreement with the above reasoning of the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 39, has very categorically held that it follows where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property, his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. In fact, such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year and that the special rule of limitation as laid down in Section 6(1) will not be applicable to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 39 has held as under at page 299:

“39. It follows that where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to sub-s. (1) of Sec. 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under sub-s. (2) of S. 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.”

16. Shri Kader, the learned counsel for appellant, contended that the lower appellate Court had committed a serious error in declaring the respondent No. 1 as an exclusive owner of the said suit house. Shri Kader contends that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court whereby the appeal was allowed is patently perverse and that this Court ought to set aside the same exercising the jurisdiction u/S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by way of the second appeal.

17. Shri P.R Deshmukh, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1, has strongly contended that the lower appellate Court has rightly considered all the material on record and the evidence on record and had rightly allowed the appeal whereby the respondent No. 1's suit was decreed. Shri Deshmukh has also contended that it is not a case as if the lower appellate Court had allowed the appeal without any evidence on record or that the same was perverse.

18. Shri Deshmukh, on the aspect of bar u/S. 6(1) r/w sub-clause (4) of Wakf Act, 1954 contended that the respondent No. 1 has not filed the suit u/S. 6 of the Wakf Act inasmuch as he does not fall under any of the three categories stated therein, but that does not mean once a notification is published by the Government of Maharashtra declaring the proprty to be a Wakf property, even though respondent No. 1 may not be under any of the three categories will not have a right to file such a suit. In that behalf, Shri Deshmukh has strongly placed reliance on the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court, which was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Muslim Wakf Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, AIR 1979 SC 289. The Rajasthan High Court in clear terms has stated that it could never have been the intention of the legislature to cast a cloud on the right, title or interest of persons who are not Muslims. The Rajasthan High Court has further stated that if a person who is non-Muslim, whether he be a Christian, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Parsi or of any other religious denomination and if he is in possession of a certain property, his right, title and interest, cannot be put in jeopardy simply because that property is included in the list published under section 5(2). He also further relied on the observation of the Rajasthan High Court holding that the Legislature could not have meant that he should be driven to file a suit in a Civil Court for a declaration of his title simply because the property in his possession is included in the list.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of the Board of Muslim Wakf Board, Rajasthan, has concurred with the above reasoning of the Rajasthan High Court fully and has observed further in unequivocal terms as under at page 299:

“39. It follows that where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is, included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to sub-s. (1) of Sec. 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under sub-s. (2) of S. 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.”

Therefore, from the above, it is extremely clear that the respondent No. 1, who is a non-Muslim, being a Hindu, could not file a suit u/S. 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, but he cannot be barred from filing a suit especially in view of the fact that his right, title and interest have been jeopardised in view of the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra aforesaid.

20. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 could not have filed such a suit at all. The respondent No. 1 is fully entitled to file such a suit.

21. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 also brought to my notice that Exhibit 54 being the extract of the Muntakhab wherein, there is an entry that the name of Vakif as Mr. Sharfuddin s/o Sonaji Panmerchant and that the said wakf was created as per the will deed of Mohd. Sharif. Shri Deshmukh contended that neither the will deed of Mr. Mohd. Sharif is produced nor any document pertaining thereto. Even the original wakfnama whereby the Wakf was created was not produced except the above Exhibit 54. Shri Deshmukh has brought to my notice an order passed by the Department of Religious Affairs of Nizam State dated 9-9-1350 Fasli (i.e 1941 A.D). The said order was produced before the trial Court as Exhibit 71. It appears that the aforesaid Amir Khan had objected to the aforesaid entry at Exhibit 54 and as such a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Department of Religious Affairs, Nizam State. In the aforesaid order being Exhibit 71, it is clearly observed that doubts were created with regard to registration of the said property as wakf as a result of some conspiracy. After detailed investigation, the concerned Residential Superintendent has held as under:

“In this way the proceedings of wakf has taken place in pursuance of some conspiracy. Therefore, the Land Survy No. 380 and house No. 13 are held to be deleted from the wakf register. The file of the District is closed and now in this file no further proceeding is required. The proceedings of District level deserve to be stopped.”

It is an admitted position that till date, this order passed by the Department of Religious Affairs, Nizam State dated 9-9-1350 Fasli in case No. File/1/54 has not been set aside. Therefore, Shri Deshmukh submitted that the overwhelming evidence, on the contrary, establishes that the property was never a wakf property and was only erroneously entered in the Muntakhab which was also rectified as far back in 1941 A.D as aforesaid. On the contrary, the appellant herein did not produce any record whatsoever excepting the aforesaid extract of Muntakhab which itself has been set aside and rectified by the aforesaid order.

22. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Senior Counsel, took me through the detailed reasoning of the lower appellate Court categorically holding that the said property was not a wakf property and that the same was wrongly included in the Muntakhab. Shri Deshmukh, therefore, contended that in view of the aforesaid clear evidence, the lower appellate Court was right in holding that it was not a wakf property and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

23. Shri Deshmukh also contended that there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal excepting to say that whether the proprty concerned is a wakf property or not, which obviously cannot be a substantial question of law.

24. In view of the clear evidence on record and as has been rightly appreciated by the lower appellate Court by giving a clear finding to the effect that it is not a wakf property, this Court, sitting in a second appeal, cannot sit in judgment over the said finding, unless the same is perverse, based on no evidence.

25. I also do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. Therefore, the second appeal stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Marawthwada Wakf Board v. Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Marathwada Wakf Board / Shri Kader)

Respondent's Arguments (Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri / Shri P.R. Deshmukh)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Marawthwada Wakf Board v. Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri And Others

Comments