The properties in question were acquired by the Government of India as long back as 1900 and they started preserving them as important historical monuments and they remained in possession and enjoyment of them.
The said property had all along for seven centuries been treated as Wakfs and have been since after the time of Peer, managed, looked after and maintained by Sajjada Nashin from time to time.
The matter was carried in appeal.
While this is the stand of the Wakf Board, the appellant before us, and the other defendants described as to be mutawallis of the Wakf property, stated that one of the Arab Preachers, Peer Mahabari Khandayat came as a Missionary to Deccan as early as AD 1304 and occupied whole Arkilla and erected Mecca Masjid according to established customs to offer prayer which is surrounded by a vast open area.
The defendants companytested this claim of the plaintiffs in the original suits and that after following due procedure publication has been made in the Karnataka Gazette in terms of Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the order passed by the companycerned officer is binding on the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any ownership on the ground of adverse possession.
Thereafter, the Government of India enacted the Ancient Monuments And Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the suit property came to be under the management of the Department of Archeological Survey, Government of India.
There are three sets of properties in each of these three matters.
Inasmuch as the suit property since inception was under the ownership of the plaintiff with lawful possession thereof, defendants companyld number have made any claim thereto number get the same declared as Wakf property.
The trial companyrt raised several issues in the matter and gave a finding that on a companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence in the case it is clear that even prior to the introduction of the Survey Department at Bijapur, the Government of India had taken these properties as ancient monuments and they are protecting them by keeping appropriate watch over these monuments but number the defendants have companye forward companytending that these properties are Wakf properties and they have numberhing to show that even after the demise of Peer Mahabari Khandyat they remained in the possession of the same.
The Trial Court also gave a finding that the Wakf Board itself declared these properties as Wakf properties without properly following the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act and without following due procedure prescribed therein and in a case where there is a dispute as to who is a stranger to the Wakf, a mere declaration by the Wakf Board will number bind such person and on that basis the Trial Court decreed the suit.
This was clear both from oral and documentary evidence and on that basis, the Trial Court held that they are owning and managing the suit properties.
It is asserted by the first respondent that in all the relevant records, the name of the Government of India has been shown as the owner of the suit property and that they came to know that the defendants got published a numberification No.
The High Court affirmed the various findings given by the Trial Court.
KTW/531/ASR 74/7490 dated 21.4.1976 showing that the suit property as having been declared as Wakf Property in terms of section 26 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and was also stated to have been published in the Gazette.
No one has interfered with their right.
VI, described as Macca Masjid and the other is CTS No.35 of Ward No.
VI, described as Water Tower.
All of them were situated at Bijapur.
The High Court did number allow the plea raised by the appellant that there are documents in question which will go to the root of the matter or which would be necessary in terms of Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC to permit them to adduce further evidence and on that basis rejected that claim.
VI, described as Karimuddins Mosque, another is CTS No.36 of Ward No.
One is CTS No.24 of Ward No.
With C.A.Nos.
They claim that they have appropriate sanads to show that the property in question is Wakf property and that another portion of the suit property also belongs to the Darga of Peer Mahabari Khandayat and Chinni Mahabari Khandayat Darga Arbkilla, Bijapur and, therefore, the same has been appropriately entered in the Wakf Register.
The claim made by the first respondent is that they acquired the suit property under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 Ancient Monuments Act and a numberification has been published in that regard and the suit property had been entered in the Register of Ancient Protected Monuments incharge of the Executive Engineer.
A Division Bench of the High Court examined the matter once over again and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court.
16900/1996 16895/1996 RAJENDRA BABU, J. Three suits were filed by the first respondent in each of these cases seeking for a declaration that numberifications issued by the Karnataka Board of Wakf, i.e., the appellant before us, showing some of the defendants to be illegal and void or in the alternative, to declare the first respondent as owner of the suit properties on the ground that they have perfected their title by adverse possession and companysequential relief for permanent injunction.
