Telangana High Court
Addagulla Narsaiah vs Mohammed Abbas Ali on 9 June, 2025
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2339 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment
and decree dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Telangana State Waqf
Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.S.No.727 of
2016 (old O.S.No.44 of 2015).
2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and respondent No.3 herein
is defendant No.3 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the
parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of present Civil Revision
Petition in brief are that plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2015,
which was subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.727 of 2016
before the Tribunal against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for
recovery of possession and perpetual injunction in respect of the
land admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas in Sy.No.118 and Acs.5.14
guntas in Sy.No.119, total Acs.5.20 guntas, situated at Vangapally
village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District (for short, 'suit
schedule property'); that the suit schedule property is attached to
the waqf institution viz., Chilla Hazrath Mahboob Pasha, which is
a registered waqf, published in A.P.Gazette Notification No.9A,
dated 01.03.1990 at Sl.No.16314. It is averred that originally, one
Rasool Saheb, who is grandfather of the plaintiffs, was appointed
as Inam Mujawar of the suit schedule property prior to 1950 and
his name was shown as Mujawar in Sethwar for the Fasli 1356 in
respect of the suit schedule property; that said Rasool Saheb
expired prior to 1951; that defendant No.1 created a registered
agreement of sale allegedly executed by said Rasool Saheb on
21.05.1951 and got his name mutated in the revenue records and
also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds from the
revenue authorities. It is further averred that plaintiff no.1 was
appointed as Mutawalli and plaintiff No.2 was appointed as Naib
Mutawalli by defendant No.2-A.P.State Waqf Board (for short,
'Waqf Board') for Waqf Institution viz., Chilla Hazrath Mahboob
Pasha.
3.1. The defendant No.1 was set ex parte on the basis of the
report filed by the Process Server that defendant No.1 refused to
receive summons and the suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment
dated 17.08.2021 and the plaintiffs filed Execution Petition vide
E.P.No.259 of 2022. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
dated 17.08.2021, the present Revision Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri B.N.Swamiji, learned counsel for respondent No.1
and Sri Mir Ibrahim Ali Kamil, learned Standing Counsel for
Telangana State Waqf Board appearing for respondent No.3.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that
W.P.No.3662 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner herein
challenging the Gazette Notification No.281 dated 03.12.2013 and
this Court granted stay of operation of said notification vide order
dated 11.02.2014. Plaintiff No.1 filed W.P.M.P.No.5099 of 2015 in
the said writ petition to implead himself as an interested party
and the same was allowed on 31.12.2019 and he was impleaded
as respondent No.3 in the said Writ Petition. Learned counsel
further submitted that this Court by order dated 07.08.2023
allowed the said writ petition and set aside the Gazette
Notification No.281 dated 03.12.2013, however, plaintiff Nos.1
and 2 who were aware of the aforesaid facts, have filed the suit
by suppressing the above said facts before the Tribunal and
obtained ex parte decree.
5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the ex parte
judgment and decree dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal in
O.S.No.727 of 2016 is liable to be set aside as the same was passed
only on the basis of addendum notification dated 03.12.2013 and
finally, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 would
submit that the contentions of the petitioner/defendant No.1 that
plaintiffs obtained an ex parte judgment and decree by managing
the Process Server is incorrect since the summons sent to the
petitioner/defendant No.1 were returned 'as refused' on
12.06.2015 and the Tribunal, basing on the material placed on
record, has rightly decreed the suit and no grounds are made out
to interfere with impugned judgment and decree passed by the
Tribunal.
6.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 further
submitted that in the counter filed in E.P.No.259 of 2022,
petitioner/defendant No.1 himself has admitted that he has
alienated the suit schedule property to third parties under
registered Sale Deed No.P197/2017 dated 15.06.2017, which was
subsequently given regular number vide No.20019/2023, dated
08.11.2023 by the Sub-Registrar Office, Yadagirigutta and
therefore, petitioner has no locus standi to file the present revision
and the revision is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
6.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 further
submitted that present revision is not maintainable without filing
review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the
impugned judgment and decree and finally, he prayed to dismiss
the revision petition.
7. Perusal of the record would disclose that petitioner/
defendant No.1 is claiming title to the suit schedule property
under registered Agreement of Sale dated 21.05.1951 and his
name was also mutated in the revenue records and further,
passbooks and title deeds were also issued in his favour. An
addendum notification No.281 dated 03.12.2013 was issued
including the suit schedule property to the earlier Gazette
Notification No.9A, dated 01.03.1990 as waqf land and the same
was challenged by the petitioner/defendant No.1 by way of filing
W.P.No.3662 of 2014 before this Court along with stay application
vide WPMP No.4525 of 2014 and this Court vide Order dated
11.02.2014 stayed the operation of said notification. Respondent
No.1/plaintiff No.1 got himself impleaded as party to the said
writ petition vide order dated 09.02.2015 in WPMP No.5099 of
2015 and subsequently, filed suit in O.S.No.44 of 2015, which was
renumbered as O.S.No.727 of 2016, before the Tribunal for
recovery of possession and injunction basing on addendum
notification and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 17.08.2021.
8. It is relevant to note that respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 despite having knowledge about the suspension of
Gazettee notification dated 03.12.2013 did not bring the same to
the notice of the Tribunal and further, respondent No.3-Waqf
Board, which is also party to the said suit, did not bring the said
fact to the notice of the Tribunal despite examining one of the
Officers as D.W.1 in the said suit. Thus, as on the date of passing
of judgment and decree in O.S.No.727 of 2016, operation of
gazette notification was already stayed by this Court. Therefore,
the notification, the basis on which the suit was filed and decreed
was not in force as on the date of passing of judgment and decree.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as well as
respondent No.3-Waqf Board, having knowledge of stay of
operation of addendum notification dated 03.12.2013, failed to
bring the said crucial aspect to the notice of the Tribunal.
9. It is appropriate to note that petitioner filed W.P.No.3662 of
2014 and obtained stay of operation of addendum notification
dated 03.12.2013, vide order dated 11.02.2014 and whereas, suit
was filed on 03.06.2015 and an ex parte decree was passed on
17.08.2021 principally on the basis of addendum notification
dated 03.12.2013. It is also relevant to note that W.P.No.3662 of
2014 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide order
dated 07.08.2023 and addendum notification dated 03.12.2013
was set aside and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court,
an ex parte judgment and decree 17.08.2021 passed in O.S.No.727
of 2016 by the Tribunal is unsustainable and the same is liable to
be set aside.
10. Insofar as the contentions of the respondent that petitioner
No.1/plaintiff No.1 alienated the suit schedule property prior to
filing of the present revision and therefore, he has no locus standi
to file and maintain the present revision is concerned, it is to be
noted that admittedly, the petitioner is a party to the suit and has
suffered decree and hence, petitioner is entitled to file and
maintain the revision petition even after alienation of the suit
schedule property and therefore, the aforesaid contention of the
respondent is untenable.
11. In the light of the foregoing reasons and discussion, this
Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the judgment and decree,
dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal at
Hyderabad in O.S.No.727 of 2016 is hereby set aside. There shall
be no order as to costs.
12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 09.06.2025
Kkm
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.2339 OF 2024
Date: 09.06.2025
kkm
