v. Syed Masood Ahmed & Anr. With

2026 INSC 1152 Non-Reportable

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

JUDGMENT

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

Ors.1, 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

Civil Appeal No.2804 of 2024 etc. Page 2 of 11

appeared for the respondents. The respondents also relied on

Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy2.

3. Anathula Sudhakar2 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

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

5. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande1 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