The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, ruling that land granted as “service inam” for rendering services to a mosque constitutes Wakf property. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs seeking a declaration of title must succeed on the strength of their own case and cannot rely on the perceived weaknesses of the defendant’s case.
The Bench, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih, restored the 2009 decision of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, which had dismissed a suit filed by private individuals claiming ownership over three acres of land in Kurnool District.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned Ac. 3.00 of land in Sy. No. 914/B, Kallur Village, Kurnool. The plaintiffs (Respondents herein) claimed absolute ownership through registered sale deeds from 1985 and 1996, tracing their title back to a 1945 partition deed. They alleged the land was “personal inam” granted by the erstwhile Nawab of Kurnool.
Conversely, the A.P. State Wakf Board (Appellant) contended the land was “service inam” attached to the Budda Buddi Mosque, as evidenced by Title Deed No. 3826 and a 1963 Gazette Notification. The Wakf Tribunal initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, holding they failed to establish valid title. However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed this in 2011, prompting the Wakf Board’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant (Wakf Board): The Wakf Board argued that the 1945 partition deed, which the plaintiffs relied upon, explicitly described the property as “service inam” for the Budda Buddi and Asthabal mosques. Citing Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board (1998), they contended that such grants clothe the property with the character of Wakf. They further argued that the High Court wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the defendants and ignored the Gazette Notification declaring the land as Wakf property.
For the Respondents (Plaintiffs): The Respondents maintained they were in settled possession for decades under registered deeds. They argued the Wakf Board failed to produce the original Title Deed (No. 3826) and that the 1963 notification was vague as it lacked specific survey numbers. They also relied on Wakf Board of A.P. v. Biradavolu Ramana Reddy (1999) to argue that any extinguished rights could not be revived.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court centered its analysis on the 1945 partition deed. Justice Masih noted:
“A bare perusal of the said document evidently indicates that the lands covered thereunder… are described as ‘service inam’ lands assigned for rendering services to Budda Buddi Mosque and Asthabal Masjid.”
The Court observed that once a property is identified as service inam for religious purposes, it is “impressed with a public or religious trust, thereby restricting their alienability.”
On Burden of Proof: The Court criticized the High Court for shifting the onus of proof. Citing P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar (2024) and Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (2011), the Bench held:
“A plaintiff seeking declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence… The failure to produce cogent title documents is fatal to the claim.”
On Admissions and Evidence: The Court highlighted that the first plaintiff (PW-1) had admitted during testimony that the land was assigned for mosque services. The Bench stated that such admissions, consistent with documentary evidence, cannot be “lightly disregarded.” While the original Title Deed was not produced due to its “brittle condition,” the Court found the cumulative evidence, including the Survey Commissioner’s Report and the 1963 Gazette Notification, sufficient to establish the Wakf character.
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the Respondents failed to establish valid title or lawful possession. The Court remarked that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and disregarding material recitals in the 1945 deed.
“We are of the considered opinion that the suit schedule property is ‘service inam’ land attached to a religious institution and partakes the character of Wakf property.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 18.01.2011, and restored the Tribunal’s decree dismissing the suit.
Case Details:
- Case Title: A.P. State Wakf Board v. Janaki Busappa and Others
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 1946 of 2013
- Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih
- Date: April 24, 2026
