The High Court dismissed six civil second appeals challenging the First Appellate Court’s decree granting a mandatory and permanent injunction in favor of private allottees against a Wakf Committee. The court held that the impugned findings did not involve substantial questions of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 109/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai-Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 110/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
(2 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
Wakf Board Rajasthan Jaipur, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur. 3. Muslim Wakf Committee, Tehsil Sawai-Madhopur, Through Sadar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 111/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 112/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
(3 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 113/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 114/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
(4 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 115/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
(5 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 116/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 117/2022
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur Through Its Sadar - Mohammed Umar Son Of Noor Khan, Resident Of Mirza Mohalla, Shahar Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
| [2025:RJ-JP:43207] | (6 of 16) | [CSA-109/2022] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : | Mr. NaseemuddinQazi | |
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Shantanu Gupta, Mr. Harshit Nehra Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar Mr. Imran Khan Mr. Utkarsh Dubey for Mr. Shovit Jhajharia |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
28/10/2025
(7 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
identical in nature in all the civil suits, except change of plot numbers and name of allottees. For ready reference the decree passed in Civil Suit No.461/1996 (282/1984): Keshav Das Vs. Muslim Wakf Board & Ors. , in First Appeal No. 31/2015 by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, is being reproduced
hereunder:-
¼1½ izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknh la- 1 yxk;r 4 dks tfj;s lnk loZnk ds fy, LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd os oknh@vihykFkhZ ds oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij uktk;t dCtk ugha djsa rFkk mldh lwjr esa dksbZ jn ~ nkscny ;k fuekZ.k dk;Z u Lo;a djsa vkSj u fdlh vU; ls djkosA ¼2½ izR;[email protected] dks tfj;s vkKkid O;kns’k ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd os okni= esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M dh fnukad 05-09-84 ls iwoZ dh fLFkfr ;Fkkor cuk, j[ks rFkk oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij uktk;t dCtk djus dh xjt ls cukbZ xbZ dPps iRFkjksa dh nhokj dks ;k fd;k x;k vU; dksbZ vfrØe.k Hkh ;fn gS rks mls Hkh fu.kZ; fnukad ls nks ekg esa vius [kpsZ ls gVkos rFkk ;fn izR;[email protected] nks ekg esa dPPks iRFkjksa dh nhokj dks ;k fd;k x;k vU; dksbZ vfrØe.k Hkh gS rks izR;[email protected] ds [kpsZ ij [email protected] gVokus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA
¼3½ [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA
Challenging the judgments and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by the First Appellate Court, instant Civil Second Appeals have been filed by and on behalf of Muslim Wakf Committee, ZilaSawai Madhopur, invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100 of CPC.
“(I) Whether the plaintiff should have challenged the Notification so issued with regard to disputed land under Wakf Act within a period of one year?
(II) Whether the plaintiff could bring the suit for perpetual injunction without making a prayer for possession as he was not in possession over the suit plot of land at the time of filing of the suit?
(8 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
(III) Whether learned first appellate court wrongly reversed the findings of the learned trial on issue No.1?”
7.1 Plaintiff filed a civil suit, for seeking permanent and mandatory injunction way back on 15.09.1984, stating inter alia that plot in question was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat Alanpur, vide allotment letter dated 24.07.1963, which was later on registered on 19.07.1965. It was averred by plaintiff that he is absolute owner and possession holder of the plot in question and when on 05.09.1984, he came to know that few persons are trying to raise construction on a boundary wall over the plot, he filed the present civil suit on 15.09.1984, seeking to restrain the defendants from entering into unauthorized possession over the plot in question and to remove the kaccha-pakka construction of wall, whichever has been erected by them on the plot in question. 7.2 Plaintiff’s suit was resisted by the defendants- Muslim Wakf Committee, disputing the possession of plaintiff over the plot land, stating inter alia that land measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa, out of total land of 2 bigha 12 biswa of Khasra No. 1508, in Village Alanpur is a wakf property, reserved and recorded in the revenue record as Gair Mumkin Kabristan and for which, a notification by the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, Jaipur dated 23.09.1965 has
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
(9 of 16)
been issued. Hence, according to defendants, the disputed plot falls under the wakf property, which has been kept reserved for the purpose of Kabristan . In addition, defendants also pleaded in Para No.6 of the written statement that at-site, one Masjid, kaccha-pakka Majarat & Kotri (Pyau), has also been constructed over the land in question and same has been in use and occupation by the people of Muslim community.
7.3 On the basis of rival pleadings, respective issues were framed and both parties were given opportunities to adduce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 26.08.2015, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, but on filing First Appeal by plaintiff, his suit has been decreed by the First Appellate Court, which is impugned herein in the present Second Appeals.
Substantial Question of Law No.(I)
Counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Syed Zainul
(10 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
Abedeen V. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf [(2020) 19 SCC 401] .
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
(11 of 16)
show plot in question in possession of Wakf Committee, was also analyzed. Statements of DW-1 and DW-3 were considered and it was held that the plot in question was never demarcated as Wakf Property. It was observed by the first appellate Court that defendants could not prove that this plot was ever used as Kabristan or is part of Masjid, Kotri (Pyau) etc.
An endeavour was made by defendants by producing DW-3, to show that the land in question was let out by the Wakf Committee to them in the year 1980, for running a tal of slab stones and few photographs were also placed on record. But on analysis of such evidence, the First Appellate Court found that the photographs are of year 2012, whereas the present civil suit was led in the year 1984. It was observed that no convincing evidence to establish the tenancy of DW-3, has been adduced.
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
(12 of 16)
was permitted to be converted and used for Aabadi purposes by the Gram Panchayat and the order of District Collector dated 20.03.1963 (Exhibit 10) has not been questioned by the Wakf Committee. The land was already recorded in the name of Gram Panchayat, which got dissolved in Nagar Palika under entry No.260, therefore, the subsequent mutation entry No. 357 made by the Tehsildar, has no legal value, more so such mutation entry No.357 has been cancelled by the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur vide judgment dated 17.12.1975 (Exhibit 13). On such basis, the First Appellate Court made observation that the entry made in the register of Wakf Committee and revenue record, looses its significance to confer any right or interest of Wakf Committee, in the land in question.
Substantial Question of Law No.(II)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
(13 of 16)
In support, counsel for appellant relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench delivered in case of Aman Singh vs. D.J. Balotra [2008 1 DNJ 22] .
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
(14 of 16)
Palika, Sawai Madhopur, who admitted that the plot in question had been allotted by the Nagar Palika (erstwhile Gram Panchayat) to the plaintiff through auction and documents are true. Thus, as per the findings of the first appellate court, the plaintiff was found to be in lawful possession of the plot at the time of institution of the present suit, being title holder of the same.
Substantial Question of Law No.(III)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
(15 of 16)
attained finality. In addition, it is noteworthy that no such factual plea was raised by defendants in written statement. Thus, this substantial question of law is devoid of any substance and does not arise at all.
In the present appeals, the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court are based on appreciation of admissible evidence. The first appellate court has assigned cogent reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the trial court and for reversing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity or illegality in the fact findings recorded by the first appellate court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC, or to give rise to any substantial question of law. The first appellate court has clearly recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the plot in question at the time of filing of the suit in the year 1984, whereas the defendants failed to establish
(16 of 16)
[2025:RJ-JP:43207]
[CSA-109/2022]
any right or possession over the land. Hence, the findings of the first appellate court do not attract the involvement of any substantial question of law.
“11. It may be mentioned that the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect. In the present case no question was framed by the High Court as to whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that Ramayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, is a finding based on no evidence or is perverse. Hence the findings of the First Appellate Court that Ramayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, could not have been interfered with by the High Court. 12. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the High Court has practically acted as a First Appellate Court and has re-appreciated the findings of fact of the learned Subordinate Judge which it could not validly do in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.”
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Sachin Sharma/S-57-65
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff should have challenged the Wakf notification within one year?
Whether a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without a prior prayer for possession?
Whether the first appellate court wrongly reversed the trial court's findings of fact?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Syed Zainul Abedeen V. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf [(2020) 19 SCC 401]Referred¶9
Aman Singh vs. D.J. Balotra [2008 1 DNJ 22]Distinguished¶16
Shankareppa M. Mutanki v. B.M. Mutanki [(2000) 9 SCC 254]Explained¶20
Birendra Kumar Dubey v. Girja Nandan Dubey [(2001) 6 SCC 767]Explained¶20
Krishnan Vs. Backiam [(2007) 12 SCC 190]Explained¶23
Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila Sawai-Madhopur
Keshav Das S/o Harlal Bajaj
Revti Devi Widow Of Keshav Das
Arjun Das Son Of Keshav Das
Beena Daughter Of Keshav Das
Mahesh Chand Son Of Keshav Das
Sudesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
