Injunction Suit: Supreme Court Says Declaration of Title Needed Only When Ownership Is Seriously Challenged

The Supreme Court has held that a suit seeking only an injunction is maintainable when there is no genuine dispute or “cloud” over the plaintiff’s title, and a separate prayer for declaration of title is necessary only when the defendant raises a substantial challenge to the plaintiff’s ownership.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation while setting aside the high court’s dismissal of a suit filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, now the Telangana State Waqf Board, and restoring the permanent injunction granted by the trial court in its favour.

Waqf Board’s title

Court found that the land in dispute had been identified as waqf property and that the alleged vendors of the defendants had only been entrusted with the land for the maintenance of the mosque, Dargah and graveyard. It therefore held that their possession did not create a genuine challenge to the Waqf Board’s title.

The Waqf Board had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its possession over ‘Mafi Inam lands’ situated adjacent to a mosque and notified as waqf property. The trial court had allowed the suit and granted the injunction.

The high court, however, set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. It held that in the absence of an occupancy certificate under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, or pahanis and other revenue records, it could not be established that the suit property was waqf property or that the respondents were in possession of it.

The high court also noted that there was a gap of nearly 20 years between the survey commissioner’s report and the Gazette Notification, while the defendants relied on pattadar passbooks relating to the suit property, which had been obtained by their vendors.

The Supreme Court, however, noted that the mere use of the expression “Mafi Inam” in the pahanis produced by the defendants could not by itself establish their title. The trial court had found that the expression indicated a service inam entrusted for the maintenance of a waqf institution.

The Bench noted that the Waqf Board was managing the Qutub Shahi Mosque, along with the Dargah of Shah Amanullah Sahab, a graveyard and a well, situated in Survey Number 89 at Hameedullah Nagar, Shamsabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

The total extent covered by the various survey numbers was 37 acres and 25 guntas, while the suit scheduled property measured 16 acres and 5 guntas.

The trial court had relied on a certified copy of the survey commissioner’s report, which recorded the existence of the mosque, Dargah, graveyard and well over an extent of 1.06 acres. It also recorded that the property was under the management of a Muthawalli, Haji Syed Maher Ali. The Gazette Notification identified the entire extent as belonging to the waqf institution.

The defendants claimed that they had obtained possession of the suit property through an agreement for sale and a Power of Attorney. However, the Supreme Court noted that the pahanis produced by them for 1956-57 to 1958-59 described the property as “Mafi Inam”.

The trial court had also found that the persons named in the pattadar passbooks were the vendors of the defendants, but there was no material showing that those vendors had acquired title to the land after the survey commissioner’s report.

The Supreme Court further noted that the defendants had not produced evidence of their possession apart from the recital contained in the agreement for sale.

The Bench also considered the survey commissioner’s 1968 report, which recorded that an objection raised by the grandson of the person whose name appeared in the revenue records had been considered and rejected.

It noted that the Dargah contained the grave of the grandfather of the person through whom the land had been entrusted for continuing the service of the mosque and Dargah and for performing the religious rites of his forefathers.

Court therefore found that the persons in possession did not have the right to sell the land. The mosque, Dargah and graveyard, along with inam lands measuring 42 acres and 3 guntas, were found to constitute waqf land existing for the maintenance of the waqf.

The Bench also noted that the alleged vendors of the defendants had never challenged the relevant order and that the defendants themselves claimed possession only through an agreement for sale and a general Power of Attorney.

“We do not think there is any cloud over the title of the suit scheduled property,” the Bench said, adding that the alleged vendors, even if they were in possession, had only been entrusted with the land for maintaining the mosque, Dargah and graveyard.

Waqf Act limitation

Court noted that the property had been surveyed and notified under Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954, with the list of waqfs subsequently published under Section 5(2). Disputes regarding the inclusion of a property in the list of waqfs were originally required to be raised before the civil court under Section 6 of the 1954 Act, and subsequently before Waqf Tribunals after the Waqf Act, 1995 came into force.

The Bench noted that the limitation for raising such a dispute was one year from publication of the list of waqfs under Section 5(2), though courts had interpreted the period as running from the date of knowledge.

“There is no dispute raised by the vendors of the defendants or the defendants themselves within the limitation period of one year,” the Bench said.

Court therefore found no reason to uphold the high court’s order and allowed the appeal, making the injunction granted by the trial court absolute.

Contempt petitions

Court also dismissed two contempt petitions filed by the respondents alleging violation of its February 6, 2024 status quo order.

One petition alleged that religious activities had been conducted on the property and that a gateway and hoarding had been erected. The other alleged that a sale deed had been cancelled without prior permission of the Court.

The Bench held that neither action interfered with the nature of the property or affected any subsisting right of the respondents. Since the Court had ruled in favour of the Telangana State Waqf Board and found that the respondents had no subsisting interest in the property, it found no reason to entertain the contempt petitions.

Case Title: The AP State Waqf Board (Now Telangana State Waqf Board) Vs Syed Masood Ahmed & Anr

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: October 26, 2026