Following protracted legal proceedings, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable judgment, ultimately providing relief to the owner of the property (Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf) for whom a decree had been awarded in 2002.
In a judgment penned by Justice M. M. Sundresh, the court criticized the delaying strategies used by the respondents. The court subsequently set aside the challenged order and reinstated the executing court's decision in favor of the appellant, who is the owner of the property.
At the outset of the judgment, the Court emphasized the unfortunate situation by referencing a statement made by Hon'ble Sir James Colvilbe in the case of General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16:
"These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne, and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree...."
In the current case, the appellant, the unequivocal owner of the property, executed a registered lease for 33 years in favor of respondent no. 2. Upon lease expiration, the appellant served a notice to recover vacant possession. After varied responses, the appellant filed a suit with the Wakf Tribunal for eviction and possession, resulting in a decree on 13.11.2002. When the appellant could not obtain possession, they filed an execution petition on 18.10.2014. Importantly, up to this point, respondent no. 2 had not raised any objections regarding the suit's maintainability.
However, after four years, a counter was filed, objecting to the earlier suit and decree. The executing court dismissed it, but the High Court of Telangana, on revision, reversed the decision citing the case of Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726.
In the current case, the Court observed that in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 414, the earlier ruling in Ramesh Gobindram was rendered obsolete by the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013. The Court affirmed that there are ample provisions to support a suit for eviction of a Wakf property. In light of this, the Supreme Court in the present case concluded:
"Justices M. M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra unequivocally held that, after a thorough examination of the said decision, the Wakf Tribunal possesses ample jurisdiction to adjudicate all suits related to a Wakf or Wakf property, regardless of the nature of relief sought, except where the statute prescribes otherwise."
TAGS: Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari Wakf (Amendment) Act 2013 Wakf Tribunal Jurisdiction Wakf property Suit for eviction.
