Hyder Sahib Mosque vs 1. Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram 2. V. Ramasamy Iyer and Others

The appellant institution relied upon an Inam Fair Register entry, which showed the Class of the inam was to the Masjid. The date on which the grant was made has not been stated. The extract of the Register on which the appellant relies shows the name Sheik Abdul Wak Phusil Khan. The Mosque also relied upon a notification issued by the Wakf Board some time in the year 1958, in which this land was shown as belonging to the Wakf. The only witness examined for the Mosque before the Settlement Officer was unable to produce any evidence about the continuous possession of the land by the Mosque. He only produced a book said to contain receipts for having received rent, a certificate from the village officer, and a kist receipt. On the other hand, the persons who had applied for grant of patta deposed before the Settlement Officer and had produced numerous documents which showed that the lands had been sold, to them, or to the predecessors-in-title from a period commencing in the 1930s. ''It is apparent that whatever may have been the position prior to 1930, lands were not in the possession of the Mosque after the sale deeds came to be executed by the predecessors-in-title of the claimants for the patta. The Settlement Officer accepted the case of the Masjid while in appeal, its claim was rejected. The Appellate Authority elide largely on the decision that had been rendered by the civil Court in which it had been held that the Mosque was not the owner of the portion of the survey number in respect of which the plaintiff in the suit before the civil Court had sought a declaration of title. We may notice here that that decision of the Civil Court subsequently came to be affirmed by this Court in Second Appeal in S.A. No. 2105/81 decided on 22.8.1991.

That the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration of title even in respect of lands which had been the subject matter of proceedings before the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 is now well established, having regard to the law laid down by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandora Sannadhi Avarwal v. Smt. T. Parvathi Ammal & Ors. 1998-2 L.W.188), and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Manicka Naicker Ors. Vs. E. Elumalai Naicker, as also the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Srinivasan and six others Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami and five others, The Full Bench of this Court has held that the civil Court would still have jurisdiction to entertain suit for declaration of title and injunction, and such a suit would not be barred by reason of any of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963.

The reliance placed by the Appellate Authority on the decision of the civil Court therefore, cannot be said to be in any way improper. The final word on matters of title is to be pronounced by the civil Court, wherever its jurisdiction is invoked.

The Inam Fair Register, on which the appellant relies had not been produced before the civil Court, whose decree was confirmed by this Court in S.A. No. 2105 of 1981. However, the survey number involved therein is the same as the survey number involved in these proceedings. In respect of the portion of that survey number, it has already been held that the Mosque is not the owner of the land. The Inam Fair Register extract, on which the Mosque relies, though it states that the class of inam is Masjid, the name of the grantee is not shown as the mosque, nor is the institution described in any other way. The name of the original grantee as given there is of an individual viz., Sheik Abdul Wak Phusil Khan. There is no explanation by the Mosque as to who is that person, who his descendants are, and what the relationship with the Mosque was. The original grant has not been produced. The Mosque has not disputed the fact that the sale deeds in respect of portions of land have in fact been executed in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the claimants. As to the competence of the executants of such sale deed, no question has been raised, and nothing is on record to show that they had not derived authority from the original grantee Sheik Abdul Wak Phusil Khan.

u/s 8(2) (i) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 in the case of lands in an Iruwaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity, where the land has been transferred by way of sale and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or person deriving rights through him had been in exclusive possession of such land for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960: such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta, if he pays as consideration to the Government in such manner and in such number of instalments as may be prescribed an amount equal to twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule and the land revenue due on such land.

Having regard to the sale deeds in favour of the claimants, and the evidence given by them before the settlement officer, it is reasonable to infer that their predecessors-in-title had been in possession for a continuous period of twelve years prior to April 1960. Though there is no evidence to show that the transfer deed in favour of their predecessors-in-title had been executed by the institution, the institution not being the grantee even in accordance with what is found in the Inam Fair Register, it is unclear as to who was competent to execute the sale deed on behalf of the institution if it were to be assumed that the institution was the grantee. We must, therefore, take an overall view of the available evidence, and in the circumstances, we consider it just to hold that the claimants are entitled to benefit of patta u/s 8(2) (i) of the Act.

The Claimants are liable to pay the consideration as prescribed by the Government u/s 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act. The Government shall under 8(4) of the Act pay to the institution concerned viz., the appellant herein in one lump sum the amount specified in Section 8(2) (i) (b) of the Act in accordance with Section 8(4) of the Act. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. No costs.