SC: Service Inam Land To Mosque Is Waqf Property, Not Personal Property

The Supreme Court has ruled that suit schedule property is “service inam” land attached to a religious institution and partakes the character of Wakf property and cannot be alienated or transferred. A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal concerning the title and possession of Ac. 3.00 in Sy. No. 914/B at Kallur Village, Kurnool District and the validity of allotment proceedings initiated by the Wakf authority under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The Court restored the Tribunal’s decree and set aside the High Court’s revision, holding that the suit schedule land partook the character of Wakf property and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a lawful title or possession sufficient for declaration or injunction. The Court relied on precedents including Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board for the doctrine that grants for religious services impart a Wakf character, P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar ( "(2024) 13 SCC 553": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 61) for the principle that the plaintiff must prove title and cannot succeed on the weakness of defence, and Rangammal v. Kuppuswami ( "(2011) 12 SCC 220": 2011 CaseBase(SC) 530) for the exposition of burden under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: At the outset, reference must necessarily be made to the crucial document relied upon by the Respondents, namely, the partition deed dated 01.06.1945, from which the entire claim of title is sought to be traced. A bare perusal of the said document evidently indicates that the lands covered thereunder, including the suit schedule property, are described as “service inam” lands assigned for rendering services to Budda Buddi Mosque and Asthabal Masjid. Once such a recital is borne out from the very document on which the Respondents predicate their title, the plea that the property constitutes “personal inam” stands clearly belied. It is undisputed and settled that lands granted as service inam for religious or charitable purposes partake the character of endowed property and are impressed with a public or religious trust, thereby restricting their alienability.

Background

The suit originated when the plaintiffs instituted proceedings in the Wakf Tribunal seeking declaration and permanent injunction impugning allotment proceedings dated 21.08.1999 by which the Wakf authority purported to allot the land to an organisation for construction of an Edgah. The plaintiffs traced title to a partition deed dated 01.06.1945 and subsequent registered sale deeds; the defendants pleaded that the land was a “service inam” attached to Budda Buddi Mosque and formed part of Wakf property, relying on Title Deed No. 3826, a Survey Commissioner’s report and a Gazette Notification dated 02.05.1963 issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The Tribunal dismissed the suit after finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish lawful possession or valid title and that the partition deed and admissions indicated service inam character. The High Court allowed revision, treating the partition deed as conferring independent title and finding in favour of the plaintiffs; this Court entertained the appeal by the Wakf Board.

The Court examined documentary and oral evidence, including admissions recorded of PW-1 and the District Judge’s report of 06.10.2007 noting compound walls and minarets. It noted that the plaintiffs could not displace the clear recital in the partition deed that the lands were service inam and that the plaintiffs had not proved independent transferable title. The Court considered the Gazette notification and Survey Commissioner’s report as corroborative while noting the collector’s endorsement regarding the brittle condition of Title Deed No. 3826. The bench emphasised established principles from Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board that grants for religious services vest an endowed character, applied P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar ( "(2024) 13 SCC 553": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 61) to reject any shift of burden onto the defendant, and relied on Rangammal v. Kuppuswami ( "(2011) 12 SCC 220": 2011 CaseBase(SC) 530) and Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to underscore that the plaintiff had to prove title on the strength of his own case. The Court also referenced procedural principles under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding admission of fresh evidence and observed that the Limitation context discussed in earlier decisions under the Limitation Act, 1963 was not material to the determinative question of the nature of the property.

The Court concluded: "Taking into consideration the above discussion and material on record, 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. The Respondents have failed to establish any valid title or lawful possession so as to entitle them to the reliefs claimed." The High Court judgment dated 18.01.2011 was set aside, the Tribunal’s judgment and decree dated 04.08.2009 were restored, the appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1946 OF 2013
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 413
Case Title: A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD THROUGH CHAIRPERSON VERSUS JANAKI BUSAPPA AND OTHERS

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 360