Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: October 14, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf (trust); Respondents – Mohammed Saleem alias Mohd. Wajid Ali and another.
  • Procedural History: Respondent No.1 filed O.S. No. 2204 of 2012 before the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 23‑02‑2001 executed by Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte; the Court decreed on 18‑03‑2015, ordering the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, granting possession and awarding Rs 10,428 costs to the plaintiff.
  • Property Description: Old Municipal No. 634 (New Municipal No. 21‑1‑1098/9/10/11), shops at Rikabgunj, Pathergatti, Hyderabad, measuring 373 sq yards (later referenced as 375 sq yards).
  • Subsequent Filings: On 05‑01‑2016 Respondent No.1 filed E.P. No. 4 of 2016 for delivery of physical possession. The appellant filed E.A. No. 94 of 2016 as a third‑party objector, contesting execution of the decree.
  • Title Claims: The appellant asserts title via a Farman Mubarak issued by the Nizam of Hyderabad, conveying the land to Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin Nawab Ahmed Nawaz Jung Bahadur for Waqf purposes. The Muntakhab (1949) described the property as the Mecca‑Madina Building; a Trust Deed (23‑09‑1976) covered approx. 3151.51 sq yds in favour of the appellant trust.
  • Competing Sale Deed: Mohammed Abdul Qayyum Sayeed, through guardian Mohammed Abdul Ghafoor, sold a 375 sq yds plot to Ali Ahmed (father of Respondent No.2). Ali Ahmed executed an Agreement of Sale with the appellant for Rs 8,00,000 cash, describing the land bounded by City Civil Court (North), Passage to Pathergatti (South), City Court land (East), and Passage to Mosque of Mirde Munnawar (West).
  • Waqf Board Proceedings: The A.P. State Waqf Board (CEO) on 15‑05‑2000 declared the property (Door Nos. 21‑1‑1098/9‑11) part of Municipal No. 21‑1‑1098. The High Court set aside that order in Writ Petition No. 9434 of 2000, directing possession to third‑party claimants (Hamid Ali et al.). Subsequent appeals (Writ Appeal No. 983 of 2001, Special Leave Petitions 2351‑2352 of 2002) were dismissed. Gazette Notification No. 47 Part II (20‑11‑2003) under the Waqf Act, 1995, notified Municipal Nos. 21‑1‑1098/1‑8 and seven unnumbered mulgies as belonging to the appellant.
  • Execution Court Orders: The Executing Court (order dated 29‑01‑2019) dismissed the claim petition on grounds that the petitioner failed to prove ownership of the schedule property, that the petition under Order XXI Rule 58 was not maintainable (it sought possession, not attachment), and that the property was not established as Waqf property.
  • High Court Challenge: The appellant challenged the 29‑01‑2019 order in CCCA No. 94 of 2019 before the High Court of Telangana; the High Court dismissed the challenge, noting lack of documents (Farman, survey report, trustee authorisation), lack of locus standi, and procedural impropriety of filing under the wrong CPC rule.
  • Supreme Court Reasoning: The Court examined arguments citing Periyammal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. V. Rajamani (2025 9 SCC 568). It clarified that Order XXI Rule 35 deals with removal of persons bound by a decree, whereas Rules 97‑101 address obstruction by strangers. The Court held that a third‑party objector must be heard under Order XXI Rule 97, and that the Executing Court failed to conduct a full inquiry as mandated by Rule 101.
  • Key Findings: The Court found that the lower‑court findings did not conform to established law, particularly regarding the burden of proof and the correct procedural route for possession disputes.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the Executing Court and the High Court.
  • The matter is remanded to the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, for fresh disposal.
  • The Executing Court is directed to allow fresh pleas from both parties, conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with CPC Order XXI Rules 97‑101, and determine the title and possession rights anew.
  • No order as to costs; any pending applications are disposed of.

Topics: Property Dispute, Waqf