Sanchayita Lahkar

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, Single Bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi delivered its judgment on May 8, 2025, affirming the right to perform annual religious rites on a disputed sacred site. The Court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court granting a permanent injunction in favor of the respondent, thereby restraining interference from the appellant in the conduct of traditional religious practices.

The dispute originated from O.S.No.2/1984 filed before the Addl. District Munsif, Adoni. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, restraining interference with his peaceful possession and religious activities at the schedule-mentioned site known as Asharkhana. The site had historical significance for the Muslim community, used for performing "Pedda Ashar" on Milad-un-Nabi day.

Also Read: A Decree By A Court Of Law Is For All Purposes Final And Binding | Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Partition Suit For Lack Of Cause Of Action

The plaintiff asserted that his family, spanning three generations, had consistently performed these religious ceremonies. His grandfather, father, and subsequently himself, conducted the annual "Ashar" ritual between 4:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. every Milad-un-Nabi day. Supporting his claims, he produced records evidencing the payment of Rs.105/- by the Wakf Board towards conducting these services.

Conversely, the defendant contended that the site belonged to the Wakf Board and was leased to his deceased brother for commercial use. He claimed continued possession following his brother’s demise, operating a fuel depot under the name "Rayalaseema Charcoal Wood Depot." The defendant admitted that the business had ceased operations a year before the suit filing and that the site had become an open ground.

The trial court partially decreed the suit on October 7, 1996, permitting the plaintiff to perform the religious ceremony on Milad-un-Nabi day but denied broader injunctive relief. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appealed. The Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, in A.S.No.13/1997, allowed the appeal on July 15, 2002, granting the permanent injunction as prayed. The defendant challenged this decision through the present Second Appeal.

Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi examined the substantive questions of law formulated during admission, including whether possession was adequately proven by the plaintiff and whether the lower appellate court erred in placing the burden of proof on the defendant.

The Court observed that the dispute involved a sacred site historically used for religious purposes. "Both Courts below concurrently found that the suit site has been used as a sacred site, for performing Ashar every year on Milad-un-Nabi day from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m." It further recorded that the plaintiff's father and grandfather had historically performed the rituals and that the plaintiff continued the practice without interruption.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (AIR 2008 SC 2033), the Court reiterated that in suits for permanent injunction regarding immovable properties, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove possession as of the date of the suit. However, it clarified that for vacant lands, "possession follows title," and a person authorized to perform rituals annually may establish possessory rights through continuous and lawful use for the intended purpose.

The High Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Ex. B-1, the alleged lease deed from the Wakf Board, noting, "The defendant did not prove Ex. B-1 by summoning officials of the Wakf Board." Similarly, Ex. B-23 produced during the appeal was found insufficient to establish the defendant’s claim. The Court stated that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving facts particularly within the defendant's knowledge—such as transfer of lease rights—lay squarely on him.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Refuses To Lift Stay On Release Of Film Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar | Finds Use Of Name Without Consent Violates Personality Rights

The Court held, "The plaintiff proved de jure possession over the suit site on the date of the suit, against the defendant." It concluded that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving his claimed rights over the property.

Concluding the matter, the Court dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The Court ordered:

"The Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2002 in A.S.No.13/1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, with costs throughout."

It further ordered closure of all pending interlocutory applications related to the appeal.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Sri A.V. Sivaiah

For the Respondents: Sri A.M. Qureshi

Case Title: Abdul Shukur (Deceased) & Ors. vs. Syed Nizamuddin @ Afzal Miah

Neutral Citation: APHC010064342004

Case Number: S.A.No.836 of 2002

Bench: Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi

[Read/Download order]