Land granted as service inam for religious purposes is Wakf property and inherently inalienable.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the suit schedule property constitutes "service inam" (Wakf property) or "personal inam" private property.

The court held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the property is "service inam" and thus Wakf property.

It also directed

The Court answered that the Respondents failed to establish valid title or lawful possession.

The High Court’s judgment dated 18.01.2011 was set aside, and the Tribunal’s dismissal of the suit dated 04.08.2009 was restored.

No order as to costs.

01Facts

The plaintiffs (Respondents) filed a suit in the Wakf Tribunal seeking a permanent injunction and declaration of title over Ac. 3.00 of land in Sy. No. 914/B, Kallur Village.

pp. 2-3

They claimed ownership via registered sale deeds from 1985 and 1996, tracing title back to a 1945 partition deed which they alleged described the land as "personal inam".

p. 3

The Appellant (Wakf Board) contended the land was "service inam" attached to the Budda Buddi Mosque (Title Deed No. 3826) and was notified as Wakf property in a 1963 Gazette.

p. 4, 9

The Tribunal dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this in revision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

pp. 5-6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the suit schedule property constitutes "service inam" (Wakf property) or "personal inam" private property.

p. 14 / para. 23

ii.2. Whether the plaintiffs discharged the burden of proof to establish valid title and lawful possession for the grant of a declaration and injunction.

pp. 20-21 / para. 32-33

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle from Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, holding that grants for religious/charitable purposes (service inams) clothe the property with the character of Wakf and are non-alienable.

p. 8, 15

Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, asserting that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact (the plaintiff).

p. 8, 21

The doctrine from P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, stating a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case, not the weakness of the defense.

p. 9, 21

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 83 Section 89

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 96

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the 1945 partition deed—the Respondents' foundational title document—explicitly described the land as "service inam" for rendering services to mosques, contradicting the claim of "personal inam".

p. 14

This was bolstered by the admission of PW-1 (Plaintiff No. 11), who conceded the land was assigned to ancestors for mosque services.

p. 16

The Court found that since the land was service inam, it was inherently Wakf property; therefore, the subsequent partition and sale deeds were void ab initio.

p. 15

The Court criticized the High Court for shifting the burden of proof onto the Wakf Board and for ignoring the statutory Gazette Notification of 1963, which, having not been challenged under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, attained finality.

p. 9, 21

Regarding possession, the Court noted that physical possession (cultivation) without lawful title does not justify a declaration of title, especially when a District Judge’s report confirmed the existence of Wakf structures like minarets and an Edgah wall on the site.

pp. 22-23