The A.P. State Wakf Board, (Now Telangana State Wakf Board) vs Syed Masood Ahmed

Non-Reportable
2026 INSC 1152


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024


The A.P. State Wakf Board,
(Now Telangana State Wakf Board)
…. Appellant
Versus
Syed Masood Ahmed & Anr.
…. Respondents
With

Contempt Petition (C) No.842 of 2026
In Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024

Contempt Petition (C) No.635 of 2026
In Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024


J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
A suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant, the
Waqf Board was allowed restraining the defendants from
interfering with the possession of the Waqf Board on ‘ Mafi Inam
lands ’, lying adjacent to a Mosque, which were also notified as
Signature Not Verified
wakf property. The decree, however, was set aside by the High
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.10.26
14:09:34 IST
Reason:
Court, holding that in the absence of occupancy certificate
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 1 of 11

under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, or pahanis or
revenue records it cannot be said that the suit scheduled
property is a wakf property, or that the respondents are in
possession of the same. It was found based on Balkrishna
Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and
1
Ors. , that an injunction restraining the defendant from
interfering with the possession cannot be granted unless
possession is proved by the plaintiff. The Survey
Commissioner's report and the Gazette Notification were 20
years apart, while the defendants had the pattadar passbooks
in respect of the suit scheduled property, as obtained by their
vendors. The mere use of the words Mafi Inam in the pahanis
submitted by the defendants cannot raise a presumption that it
is a service inam given to a wakf institution. The decree granting
injunction was set aside, affirming the possession of the
defendants and the suit was dismissed, which order is
impugned before us.
2. Sri K. Parmeshwar, learned Senior Counsel appeared for
the appellant and Sri Naveen Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel

1
(2020) 19 SCC 119
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 2 of 11

appeared for the respondents. The respondents also relied on
2
Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy .
2
3.
Anathula Sudhakar summarizes the law with regard to
suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property.
It was held that when there is a mere interference with the lawful
possession of the plaintiff or threat of dispossession, a suit for
injunction simpliciter would suffice. However, when a cloud is
raised over the plaintiff’s title and there is no possession, a suit
for declaration and possession, with or without consequential
injunction is the remedy and when the plaintiff’s title is not in
dispute or under a cloud but he is out of possession, he has to
sue for possession with a consequential injunction. This has to
be read with the clarification as coming out from paragraph 14
which is extracted hereunder: -
“14. We may, however, clarify that a prayer for
declaration will be necessary only if the denial of
title by the defendant or challenge to the plaintiff's
title raises a cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the
property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's
title, when some apparent defect in his title to a
property, or when some prima facie right of a third
party over it, is made out or shown. An action for

2
(2008) 4 SCC 594
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 3 of 11

declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on
the title to the property.”

4. Therein the plaintiff and the defendant claimed title on the
very same property but under two different sale deeds; the one
in favour of the plaintiffs, by the sister and that, in favour of the
defendants, by the brother. The suit was one for injunction
simpliciter against the defendants, from interfering with the
peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiffs. The
brother, the vendor of the defendants, was shown in the
revenue records as the owner of the property. The plaintiffs
contended that the property was gifted by the brother to the
sister by an oral gift. The Trial Court decreed the suit, which
was set aside by the First Appellate Court, which order was
reversed by the High Court restoring the Trial Court’s decree.
From the evidence led it was found that the plaintiffs had taken
inconsistent stands with respect to the title of their vendor; the
sister. One, being a gift by the father, the other, through a
partition and also an oral gift by the brother. It was held that
such complicated questions could be examined only in a title
suit, i.e. a Suit for declaration and consequential relief and not
in a suit for injunction simpliciter.
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 4 of 11

1
5. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande was concerned with a
suit filed in the year 2004 by the plaintiff claiming possession as
a tenant of a premises, for injunction simpliciter against the
defendant-owner from interfering with the repairs intended to
the premises. The owner on the other hand claimed that he had
filed a suit for eviction in the year 1988, and consequent to a
settlement, the tenant having vacated the premises in 1991, a
purshis was filed withdrawing the suit in the year 1991. The
tenancy having come to an end at that point, there was no
payment of rent after 1991 by the plaintiff. While the Trial Court
dismissed the suit finding no possession, the First Appellate
Court and the High Court decreed the suit drawing inference of
possession from the purshis , which only indicated withdrawal of
the suit on certain technical defects; not proving the actual
vacation of the premises. This Court found fault with the
inference of lack of possession based only on the purshis when
the Commissioner’s report in the suit clearly indicated that the
subject premises at the time of inspection was not conducive to
carrying on a business. The specific contention of the tenant
was that he was carrying on an eatery, a paan shop and
fabrication work in the premises. The businesses claimed were
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 5 of 11

not found existing in the property, and the plaintiff could not
produce any license issued by the Corporation to carry on such
businesses and the three-phase electricity connection required
to carry on a fabrication business, was also lacking in the
premises.
6. Neither a cloud on title as coming out from the first cited
case or a dispute on actual possession as had regulated the
decision second cited, arise herein. We will first deal with the
judgement of the Trial Court, which was in detail. The appellant
herein was in management of a Mosque known as Qutub Shahi
Mosque, with a Dargah of Shah Amanullah Sahab and a
Graveyard also attached with a well, situated in Survey Number
89, Hameedullah Nagar, Shamsabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. The total extent in various Survey Numbers was 37
acres 25 guntas, while the suit scheduled property had an
extent of 16 acres and 5 guntas, claimed by the defendants. The
Trial Court referred to Ex. A1, the certified copy of the Survey
Commissioner’s report which specifically found the existence
of the Mosque, Dargah, Graveyard and the well in an extent of
1.06 acres. The Muthawalli of which was one Haji Syed Maher
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 6 of 11

Ali. Ex. A2 was a copy of the gazette, which clearly identified
the entire extent as a wakf institution.
7.
The defendant’s claim was that they had obtained
possession of the suit scheduled property by way of an
agreement for sale and a Power of Attorney. However, the
defendants admitted that the Mosque had existed for long.
Though the witnesses claimed it to be existing for thousands of
years, the Trial Court found the same to be exaggerated and
found its existence for the last 200 years. The pahanis produced
by defendants between the years 1956-57 to 1958-59 clearly
indicated it to be a maafi inam property, which makes it a
service inam entrusted for the maintenance of a waqf institution.
The persons whose names were shown in the pattadar
passbooks were the vendors of the present defendants. It was
also found that the pahani showing possession on the vendors
was of the year 1956-1957 & 1958-1959 and but for the recital in
the agreement of sale there was nothing proving the possession
of the defendants. There was also no proof of title of the suit land
on the vendors of the defendants after the Survey
Commissioner’s Report.
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 7 of 11

8. A reading of the Survey Commissioner's Report of the
year 1968, produced as Annexure P1, indicates a survey
conducted and the objection of the grandson of the person
whose name was entered in the revenue records having been
considered and rejected. The Dargah in the property was the
grave of the grandfather of the petitioner therein and the
entrustment of the land to the petitioner therein, was found on
the basis of Ex. A1, to continue the service to the Mosque and
the Dargah and to perform the religious rites of his forefathers.
The persons who were in possession thus did not have any right
to sell the land and hence the Mosque, the Dargah and the
Graveyard along with the inam lands situated in survey
numbers 57, 59, 60, 81, 87, 88, 89 and 121 measuring 42 acres
and 3 guntas were found to be wakf land existing for the
maintenance of the Wakf. There is no challenge made to the
said order by the vendors of the defendants; who in any event
are said to be the persons in possession, by virtue only of an
agreement of sale and general power of attorney.
9. Annexure P2 notification issued on 9-2-1989 is relevant
and we extract serial number 3108:
“1. Serial Number. 3108
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 8 of 11

2. Name of Taluq or Village or Ward.- Hyderabad
West, Taluk, Hameedullah Nagar, (Shamshabad
Circle)
3. Name and situation of Wakf Sunni or Shia.-
Mosque Qutub Shahi in S.No.89 with Dargah Shah
Amanullah Saheb and Graveyard with one well,
Area: One Acre 6 Guntas. (S) (1)
4. Nature and object of Wakf.- Prayer, Burial and
Fateha (R)
5. Boundaries: N - S.No. 89
S - S.No.89
E - S.No. 89
W - S.No. 89
6. Name of Mutawalli, Haji Syed Meher Ali S/o
Late Syed Yaseen All R/o Adj. to Masjid-e- Sang,
Gowligda.
7. Gross Income.- 200/-
8. The amount of land Revenue, ......... and Taxes
payable in respect of Wakf properties.- L.C 7 - 50
9. The expenses incurred in the realisation of the
income and pay or other remuneration of
Mutawalli of the Wakf.

Details of Wakf properties attached to Wakf.
(Agricultural). 50-00
10. Survey Number.- 81, 87, 88, 89, 121, 55, 56, 57,
59 and 60.
11. Extent.-Dry Ac-37-25,G AC-1-06,0
(Uncultivable)
12. Extent. Wet 4 - 08
13. Non-Agricultural: Nature of property L.
House/Mulgi etc. Nine Tamerind trees, Fourteen
Mango trees In S.No.89.
14. Municipal Number. -
15: Remarks. -”

10. We do not think there is any cloud over the title of the suit
scheduled property and the alleged vendors of the defendants,
if in possession was only entrusted the said land for the purpose
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 9 of 11

of maintenance of the Mosque, the Dargah and the Graveyard.
The Survey is carried out, leading to Annexure P2 gazette
notification under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and gazetted
under Section 5(2). Disputes regarding wakfs under Section 6
were to be raised originally before the Civil Court as per the
Wakf Act, 1954 and then by the ‘Wakf Tribunals’ after the Wakf
Act, 1995 came into force were constituted. For our purpose the
limitation provided for raising a dispute is one year from the
date on which the list of wakf’s are published under Section
5(2). The limitation has been judicially interpreted to mean
from the date of knowledge. Obviously, there is no dispute
raised by the vendors of the defendants or the defendants
themselves within the limitation period of one year from
Annexure P2 nor is a contention raised of first knowledge to be
on a subsequent date.
11. We find absolutely no reason to uphold the order of the
High Court, and we set aside the same. The Appeal stands
allowed making the injunction granted by the Trial Court
absolute.
12. We also see that there are two Contempt Petitions filed by
the respondent, alleging contempt of the status quo order
Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 10 of 11

passed by this Court on 06.02.2024. In one of the petitions, it
was alleged that religious activities were conducted in the
property and that a gateway and hoarding were erected. The
allegation in the other contempt petition is with respect to the
cancellation of a sale deed, without prior permission of the
Court.
13. We do not think that either of these actions would have
interfered with the nature of the property or affected the rights
of the respondent herein who was the petitioner in the
Contempt Petition. In any event, we have held in favour of the
Telangana State Wakf Board, and the respondent has no
subsisting interest in the property. We find absolutely no
reason to entertain the Contempt Petitions. The same stands
dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.


.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)



..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 26, 2026.

Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 11 of 11