G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ALL the three appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as they arise of out of a common judgment in OS Nos. 556 of 1983, 604 of 1983 and 17 of 1986 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) ONE Mr. T. Sesha Reddy, represented by his GPA Mr. K. P. Reddaiah, is the plaintiff in OS No. 556 of 1983 who filed the said suit for declaration of his title in the plaint schedule property and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said property and in the alternative for declaration of title and for possession of the suit property and for costs. The first defendant is the Managing Committee of Jame Masjid and the 2nd defendant is the A. P. Wakf Board represented by its Secretary. Originally the suit was numbered as OS No. 470 of 1982 and on its transfer it was renumbered as OS No. 556 of 1983. ( 3 ) OS No. 604 of 1983 was filed by M/s. Saradhi Engineering Corporation represented by its Managing Partner K. P. Reddaiah along with Alia Begum and Akeela Begum seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and the associates of Masjid Bee Saheba from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated in building bearing No. 6-3-454 and 455, Panjagutta, Hyderabad in an extent of 1321. 58 sq. yards. Originally, this suit was numbered as OS No. 2051 of 1979 and subsequently, on its transfer, it was renumbered as OS No. 604 of 1983. ( 4 ) OS No. 17 of 1986 was filed by the Managing Committee of Jame Masjid Bee Saheba, Panjagutta against Reddaiah seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455, Panjagutta Hyderabad. This suit was originally numbered as OS No. 2054 of 1979 and subsequently it was re-numbered as OS No. 17 of 1986 on its transfer to the court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455, Panjagutta Hyderabad. This suit was originally numbered as OS No. 2054 of 1979 and subsequently it was re-numbered as OS No. 17 of 1986 on its transfer to the court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ( 5 ) A comprehensive suit was filed in OS No. 556 of 1983 which would decide the other two suits also and, therefore, the trial Court has decided the suit OS No. 556 of 1983 and the evidence was recorded in OS No. 556 of 1983. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff in OS No. 556 of 1983 that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property viz. , the residential house bearing Municipal No. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455 constructed upon the site admeasuring 1321. 58 square yards situated in Panjagutta, Hyderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 6-7-1978 executed by Md. Abdul Haq and four others. The said vendors inherited the same from one Khanam Jahan wife of Md. Abdul Raheem. The said lady purchased that property from one Ahmadi Begum and others under a registered sale deed dated 2-12-1961. The said Ahmadi Begum inherited that property from one Safdar AH, brother of Fatima Bee. Ever since the sale, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, the defendants threatened to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The tenant of the plaintiff filed OS No. 2051 of 1979 on 12. 7. 1979 and obtained interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. Thereupon, the 1st defendant filed the suit OS No. 2054 of 1979 on 13. 7. 1979 and obtained interim injunction on the same day. Under the guise of the interim injunction, the 1st defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs tenant from some portion of the house. Thereafter, the interim injunction was made absolute on 23. 8. 1979 and the matter was carried in appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the interim injunction to be continued in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property. Consequent upon the transfer of the three suits to one Court, they are re-numbered as referred to above. 8. 1979 and the matter was carried in appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the interim injunction to be continued in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property. Consequent upon the transfer of the three suits to one Court, they are re-numbered as referred to above. ( 7 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that that the suit schedule property was never registered as Wakf property and that the Director of Endowments in his letter dated 31. 12. 1953 has held that the original owner Safdar Ali was residing in this house bearing Municipal No. 6-3-454 and it was also clarified that the Mosque Bi Saheba was entered in the books of Endowments and that the suit schedule property did not form part of the Wakf property. The plaintiff also stated that there was a dividing wall between the mosque and the suit schedule property and the same was dismantled under the garb of the injunction order. When the Chief Judge, City Civil Court inspected the premises, he found this situation. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit in a comprehensive manner seeking the relief as referred to above. ( 8 ) THE 1st defendant Masjid, in the written statement, denied the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the sale deeds are not binding and the purchasers in title had no right to transfer or alienate the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. They also referred to the filing of the suit in OS No. 2051 of 1979 and since the plaintiff was not in possession, the question of dispossessing the plaintiff did not arise. It was further stated that the suit house was constructed in the year 1935 along with the mosque during the life time of Fatima Bi Saheba, who was alive till 1950. It is also stated that the property was also Wakf by user. The letter issued by the Director of Endowments has no binding effect on the defendants. In fact, common boundary wall was constructed for the mosque and the house and the suit schedule property falls within the boundaries of the mosque. Neither the plaintiff nor his alleged tenants were in possession at any point of time. The letter issued by the Director of Endowments has no binding effect on the defendants. In fact, common boundary wall was constructed for the mosque and the house and the suit schedule property falls within the boundaries of the mosque. Neither the plaintiff nor his alleged tenants were in possession at any point of time. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the Managing Committee of the mosque was in possession and enjoyment. It is also stated that Fatima Bi Saheba purchased an extent of 9,250 sq. yards in S. No. 123 of Panjagutta under a registered sale deed dated 28. 4. 1932 with an intention of constructing a mosque and a house thereon. The donations were collected and after the plan was approved, she constructed the mosque and the house over an extent of 5,500 sq. yards and also a compound wall. The said Fatima Bi completed the construction in 1935 or 1936 and ever since the construction, the mosque was being used for religious purposes. The Pesh and Mousan of the mosque used to live in the suit house. Fatima Bi died on 19. 3. 1950 as spinster. None of her relatives partitioned the properties. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. ( 10 ) THE 2nd defendant also filed a separate written statement disputing the ownership of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. ( 11 ) BASING on the respective contentions, the lower Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of H. No. 6-3-454 and 455 open land admeasuring 1321. 58 sq. yards situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad ? 2. Whether the suit property is part and parcel of mosque ? 3. Whether the suit property is within the boundary wall of the mosque ? 4. Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property through tenants ? 5. Whether the first defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property taking advantage of the ex parte interim injunction order ? 6. Whether any wall is existing dividing the suit property from the Mosque ? 7. Whether the plaintiff and his tenants are in possession of the entire open space of the suit property ? 8. Whether any samans of the plaintiff s tenants lying in the open space ? 9. Whether the suit property was valued properly ? 10. To what relief?however, the issues were again re-framed as follows:1. 7. Whether the plaintiff and his tenants are in possession of the entire open space of the suit property ? 8. Whether any samans of the plaintiff s tenants lying in the open space ? 9. Whether the suit property was valued properly ? 10. To what relief?however, the issues were again re-framed as follows:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title to the suit property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative for declaration and possession of the suit property ? 2. Whether the suit is properly valued ? If so, whether the Court fee paid is correct ? 3. Whether the suit property belongs to the first defendant ? 4. To what relief ? ( 12 ) COMING to the averments in OS No. 604 of 1983, it was stated that the suit schedule property was purchased under a registered sale deed and that the defendants have no manner of right to interfere with the suit schedule property and that they are claiming themselves as the members of the Managing Committee of the Masjid. The defendants filed a common written statement disputing the averments and it was stated that the suit schedule property belongs to the Masjid and it was a Wakf property. Basing on the respective contentions, the lower Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i. e. , the A. P. Wakf Board ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ? 3. To what relief? ( 13 ) OS No. 17 of 1986 was filed by the Masjid Committee. In the plaint averments it is stated that the land in S. No. 123, Panjagutta admeasuring 9,250 sq. yards belong to one Mr. Amir Ali S/o Mir Hassan AH. He sold the said property for consideration in favour of Fatima Begum @ Yaseen Bee under a registered document dated 28 Khurdad 1311 Fasli. The said Fatima Begum purchased the site with an intention to construct a mosque and a house for priest and for running religious institution. She raised funds and constructed the mosque by spending one lakh rupees. She also started construction of two houses on the rear side of the mosque, but, the construction could not be completed as she died in the year 1950. She raised funds and constructed the mosque by spending one lakh rupees. She also started construction of two houses on the rear side of the mosque, but, the construction could not be completed as she died in the year 1950. After her death the construction was completed by local people. The said Fatima Begum made a Wakf of the entire property and the constructions made in it and as such the Muslims were using the property as Wakf property ever since the completion of the construction. Some portions of the mosque property were occupied by third parties and after the encroachment, the site of 5,300 sq. yards remained unoccupied. After the death of Fatima Begum, her brother Syed Safdar Ali was managing the mosque. But, since he was mismanaging the affairs, the people of the locality removed him in 1955 and a new managing committee was constituted by the Wakf Board, which was recognised by the Wakf Board by its letter dated 27. 12. 1978. Since the defendants, with the assistance of outsiders, were trying to interfere with the suit house, a suit was filed seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, the defendants filed written statement denying that Fatima Begum purchased that property with an intention to construct the mosque. It is stated that the eastern portion of the property devolved on Md. Abdul Haq, Md. Abdul Haleem, Md. Abdul Hadi, Alia Begum and Akeela Begum. The property originally belonged to Smt. Khanam Jahan W/o Mir Mohd. Abdul Raheem, who was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. There was a dilapidated house bearing Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455. The extent of that property was 1321. 58 sq. yards. After the death of Khanam Jahan the property devolved upon the above referred persons. They sold the said land to Mr. T. Sesha Reddy for Rs. 30,000/- under a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the defendants made improvements to the suit house and were using the same for storing building material and the mosque or the Wakf Board had no authority. It is also stated that the plaintiffs themselves removed the compound wall and that the defendants have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property since its purchase. Basing on these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction as prayed for ? 2. It is also stated that the plaintiffs themselves removed the compound wall and that the defendants have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property since its purchase. Basing on these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction as prayed for ? 2. Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient ? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the Wakf Board as party in the suit? 4. Relief? ( 14 ) TWO witnesses were examined for plaintiff and Exs. A1 to A11 were marked. Three witnesses were examined for defendants and Exs. B1 to B18 were marked. The trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, held that the plaintiff has not been able to establish the title of his predecessor and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek any relief in the comprehensive suit and accordingly dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 3. 3. 1993 against which CCCA No. 71 of 1993 was filed. With regard to the other suits, OS No. 604 of 1983 was decreed to the extent of two rooms subject to the right of the other side to evict in accordance with law. Against the said judgment and decree CCCA No. 31 of 1994 was filed by M/s. Saradhi Engineering. OS No. 17 of 1986, filed by the Masjid Committee, was decreed except to the extent of two rooms covered by the decree in OS No. 604 of 1983. Against the said judgment and decree, Mr. Reddiah, the uefendant therein filed CCCA No. 51 of 1994. ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellants Mr. V. Venkataramana, submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the title of the plaintiff in OS No. 556 of 1983 is wholly misconceived and runs counter to the evidence on record. Learned Counsel would submit that the trial Court has not been able to appreciate the evidence on record properly and thus misdirected itself by recording an incorrect finding. Learned Counsel would submit that the trial Court has not been able to appreciate the evidence on record properly and thus misdirected itself by recording an incorrect finding. He has taken this Court to the judgment and also the relevant documentary and oral evidence adduced in this regard and submits that the findings are liable to be set aside and the suit OS No. 556 of 1983 and 604 of 1983 have to be decreed as prayed for and suit in OS No. 17 of 1986 is liable to be dismissed. ( 16 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants submits that the findings recorded by the lower Court are based on evidence available on record and that the appellant-plaintiff has miserably failed to establish the title of his predecessor-in-interest and consequently he could not get better title than his predecessor and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court are quite legal and valid and they are unassailable. ( 17 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Masjid Committee also would submit that the suit filed in the capacity of GPA itself is wholly misconceived when the original purchaser viz. , Sesha Reddy did not adduce any evidence at all and, therefore, the evidence adduced by the GPA cannot be taken note of. He relied on the following decisions viz. , Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain and others, AIR ,1998 Raj. 185 and M. Kishore Kuftiar v. Moh. Akbar Siddiqui and others, 1993 (3) ALT 429 . I need not refer to these decisions as no such objection was raised in the written statement in respect of GPA and no issue was framed. Further no arguments were also adduced by the respondents in the suits before the lower Court. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Wakf Board also sails with the learned Counsel appearing for the Masjid Committee and submits that the property is Wakf property and that it is established by the evidence on record and even the entry in the register of Wakf would also indicate that the suit schedule property is Wakf property and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff. ( 19 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff has not been able to establish the title is sustainable in law. ( 19 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff has not been able to establish the title is sustainable in law. The finding on this issue governs the other issues as the title to the property is the principal issue which was involved and which was adjudicated by the trial Court. Ex. A1 is the registered sale deed under which the plaintiff has purchased from Mohd. Abdul Haq and others the house bearing Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455, Panjagutta, Hyderabad with open land admeasuring 1321 square yards. Ex. A2 is the registered sale deed of 1961 under which the suit schedule property was purchased by Khanam Joan Saheba from Ahmedi Begum and others, legal representatives of Syed safdar Ali. Ex. A3 is the Muntakab and Ex. A4 is the partition deed dated 7. 11. 1950. Ex. A11 is the letter issued by the Endowments Department dated 31. 12. 1953. These are the principal documents which are pressed into service by the plaintiff to sustain his contention. ( 20 ) EX. B 1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28th Khurdad 1341-Fasli. Ex. B2 is the Wakf plan issued by the Secretary. Ex. B 14 is the registered plan showing the land of the mosque and the title of the house. Ex. B 15 is the true copy of Muntakhab. Ex. B 16 is the true copy of the survey and settlement of Wakf property. Ex. B 17 is the certified copy of the plan attached to Ex. B 16. Ex. B 18 is the Xerox copy of the gazette notification dated 30. 8. 1984. ( 21 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would submit that under Ex,a2 the land was purchased by one Fatima Bee Saheba alias Yaseen Bee Saheba. On 29th Jamadiul Awal, 1369 Hijri the said Fatima Bee died. In Ex. A2 there is a reference to the registered partition deed dated 7. 11. 1950 wherein it was mentioned that their ancestor Syed Safdar Ali got the said old house apart from the other property in his share of the property left by Fatima Bee Saheba. There is no dispute that Syed Safdar Ali was the brother of Fatima Bee and that Safdar Ali expired on 23. 6. 1958. 11. 1950 wherein it was mentioned that their ancestor Syed Safdar Ali got the said old house apart from the other property in his share of the property left by Fatima Bee Saheba. There is no dispute that Syed Safdar Ali was the brother of Fatima Bee and that Safdar Ali expired on 23. 6. 1958. Even according to the averments in written statement filed by the Masjid Committee and also the Wakf Board it is stated that an extent of 9,200 sq. yards was purchased in 1961. The property purchased under Ex. A1 is a partly dilapidated house bearing Municipal Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455 with adjacent land admeasuring in all 1321. 58 square yards. The contention of the plaintiff is that the land in question which was purchased under Ex. A2 was not the Wakf property and that it is quite distinct and separate property and, therefore, neither the Wakf Board nor the Masjid committee can claim any right over the said property. The learned Counsel for the appellant would also refer to Exs. A1 and A2 in which the name of the property was described with house numbers and that what was being claimed by the Wakf Board and have been registered as Wakf property was only 6-3-453 and 6-3-456 and in that regard the learned Counsel would also refer to Ex. B 15 and also Ex. B 16 in which the property so registered by the Wakf Board are clearly mentioned. He refers to Col. No. 3 Municipal No. and boundaries in which house number was stated as F-2-456 and Mosque No. as F-2-453. ( 22 ) IN Ex. B 16 which is the proforma for survey of Wakf properties under the provisions of the 1954 Wakf Act, in the column name of the district, it was mentioned as : ward No. 6, Hyderabad city, Name of Tahsil: Block No. 3, Name of village: 6-3-453, Panjagutta, Name and situation of Wakf: Masjid Bee, Saheba and Maqbera (Tomb) Bee Saheba, and graves behind the mosque situated at Panjagutta along with the house and Petrol Pump. With respect to the details of immovable properties, in Column No. 8, the total area of Wakf mentioned as 5,833. 7 sq. yards. ( 23 ) FROM this, the learned Counsel would submit that the boundaries of the mosque and the house are clearly delineated in the two important documents viz. With respect to the details of immovable properties, in Column No. 8, the total area of Wakf mentioned as 5,833. 7 sq. yards. ( 23 ) FROM this, the learned Counsel would submit that the boundaries of the mosque and the house are clearly delineated in the two important documents viz. , Muntakhab and also a register of Wakf maintained by the Wakf Board and there is reference to the house and the land belonging to Syed Safdar Ali and even the land of the mosque was clearly demarcated in the plan attached to said survey. He also refers to the gazette dated 30. 8. 1984, Ex. B 18 in which item No. 1727 relates to the Wakf in question. In the said gazette, column No. 2, name of the Taluk or village or Ward, it was mentioned as Ward No. 6, Block No. 3. In column No. 3 name and situation of Wakf Sunni or Shia, it was mentioned as Masjid Qamber Ali inside Maqta Feroze Ali behind market, Khairatabad (S) (24 ). Nature and object of Wakf -Prayer. Fateha and Burial (R ). Boundaries: north: Open land and house south: Open land and house east: Road west: Open land in Column No. 13 Nature of property, it was mentioned as one house and in Column No. 14, Municipal No. , no municipal number has been mentioned. ( 24 ) FROM the above details, the learned Counsel would submit that the property of Wakf is quite distinct and different and that the suit schedule property cannot be said to be forming part of the property registered by the Wakf Board inasmuch the property which is registered by the Wakf Board is H. No. 6-3-453. Therefore, except these two viz. , house and the mosque, no other property vests with the Wakf Board and, hence, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has not been able to establish the title of the vendors is absolutely baseless and it completely misconstrued the scope of the documents which were even relied on by the defence. Therefore, except these two viz. , house and the mosque, no other property vests with the Wakf Board and, hence, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has not been able to establish the title of the vendors is absolutely baseless and it completely misconstrued the scope of the documents which were even relied on by the defence. ( 25 ) THE learned Counsel would also submit that it is not only the comprehensive suit which is filed by the plaintiff, but, the Masjid Committee also filed separate suit seeking relief on the ground that it is the owner of the property as mentioned in the plaint and in the said plaint it has referred to the house bearing Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455, Panjagutta which property was never held by it even according to their averments. According to the documents filed, learned Counsel would submit that Exs. B15, B16 and B17 would not refer to these house numbers but different house numbers. Therefore, basing on this, he further submits that the document Ex. A2 has to be treated as a document getting protection of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. As on the date on which it was sought to be considered by the trial Court, it was more than 30 years and, therefore, a presumption should go in favour of the statement made in the document. This aspect also was not considered by the trial Court in the proper perspective. It is no doubt true that evidence was let in by both the parties in respect of the suit schedule property. Even though the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that he acquired title to the property through Ex. A2, but, in the instant case, when both the parties let in evidence, the question of placing the burden on one particular party would not arise and the matter has to be viewed basing on the oral evidence let in by the parties in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, it is not only the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, but the Mosque Committee also filed the suit. When once the evidence was let in, the question of either placing burden or shifting the burden from one party to another would not arise. In the instant case, the very claim of the appellant-plaintiff is that the land in question in total extent of 9,200 sq. When once the evidence was let in, the question of either placing burden or shifting the burden from one party to another would not arise. In the instant case, the very claim of the appellant-plaintiff is that the land in question in total extent of 9,200 sq. yards was purchased by Fatima Bee under a registered sale deed dated 28. 4. 1932 and thereafter, as seen from the evidence, a mosque and a house was constructed thereon. Even though it was alleged by the defendants that the public funds were pressed into service for construction of the house or mosque, except the averments in the written statement, there is no documentary evidence pressed into service. It is the case of the defendants themselves that an extent of 5,500 sq. yards was occupied by the mosque and the house and they are not concerned with the remaining land. But, the question is whether the suit schedule property falls in these 5,500 sq. yards alleged to be the property of the Wakf as covered by Exs. B15, B16 and B17. Even according to the defendants, an extent of 9,250 sq. yards was sold by one Mr. Amir Ali to Fatima Bee and to that extent it is an admitted fact and the defendants themselves admitted the said fact. But, the question is whether the land was partitioned and the suit schedule property fell to the share of Syed Safdar AIi It is in evidence that the masjid was constructed and a house was also constructed. It is in the oral evidence of defendants that Fatima Bee has constructed the mosque and created a Wakf. But, no documentary evidence to that extent is forthcoming. If there is really any dedication by Fatima Bee, there ought to have been some document to this effect. The defendants have also taken alternative plea that it can also be Wakf by user as the masjid was being used for several years by the Muslim community. But, there is any amount of difference between a Wakf and a Wakf by user. In case of Wakf, there should be dedication by a person and the dedication must be in writing or it must be established by satisfactory evidence. In the instant case, even though it was sought to be contended that it was dedicated by Fatima Bee, but, no such document is forthcoming. In case of Wakf, there should be dedication by a person and the dedication must be in writing or it must be established by satisfactory evidence. In the instant case, even though it was sought to be contended that it was dedicated by Fatima Bee, but, no such document is forthcoming. Further, as can be seen from the records, it was registered not as a Wakf by user, but it was registered as a dedication by Fatima Bee and the document depicting the dedication is not forthcoming. ( 26 ) THIS land was gifted to Safdar Ali by Fatima Bee. Apart from that the landed property left over by Fatima Bee was partitioned among heirs as per Muslim law and in that partition Ex. A4 Syed Safdar Ali had a share. ( 27 ) ON the other hand, the claim of the appellant is that the suit schedule property was covered by H. No. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455 over an extent of 1,321. 5 sq. yards. This land was gifted to Syed Safdar Ali by his sister Fatima Bee. Apart from that, the landed property left over by Fatima Bee was partitioned among her heirs as per Muslim Law and in that partition Syed Safdar Ali had a share. In the properties partitioned between the parties, Syed Safdar Ali was allotted some properties apart from the property which fell to Syed Safdar Ali under the oral gift and the properties. Ex. A4 was also identified with the boundaries. The trial Court however came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of gift having been made by Fatima Bee in favour of her brother Syed Safdar Ali. It also found that no evidence either of the relations or other witnesses was forthcoming to establish the gift made by Fatima Bee as the plaintiff failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the documents and the transactions. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not establish the title. The trial Court also took into consideration Ex. A1 and failed to act on this on the ground that it was not proved by any other evidence except filing documents and none of the witnesses or attestors to the documents were examined. It is also the contention that the lower Court gravely erred in refusing to give credence to the documents Exs. A1, A2, A3 and All. A1 and failed to act on this on the ground that it was not proved by any other evidence except filing documents and none of the witnesses or attestors to the documents were examined. It is also the contention that the lower Court gravely erred in refusing to give credence to the documents Exs. A1, A2, A3 and All. ( 28 ) THE crucial question that calls for consideration is whether the registered documents having been admitted in evidence and if there is no challenge to such documents, can it be said that still they have to be proved by means of evidence by examining the persons, who were connected with those documents. ( 29 ) FURTHER issue would also arise as to whether the suit schedule property in question is a Wakf property covered by the notifications issued under the Wakf Act. ( 30 ) IT is to be noted in this regard that evidence with regard to the actual events that had taken place right from the execution of the sale deed in 1941-Fasli and subsequent documents is not available on record. It is obvious from the documents that the original purchasers were not alive. Even Syed Safdar Ali also was not alive. Therefore, the matter has to be decided principally on the basis of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties. ( 31 ) EX. A1 is the year 1978 under which the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property wherein the boundaries of the suit schedule property was mentioned and the house number was clearly mentioned as 6-3-454, 6-3-455, Panjagutta. The boundaries are as follows: north: Land of N. Anjaiah, common passage. House of Khalid Mahamood and Smt. Sajadi Begum. South: Neighbour s land, East: Area of Masq B-Saheba, West: Neighbour s land. ( 32 ) IN Ex. A2, the wife of late Syed Safdar Ali executed a sale deed on 7. 12. 1961. The boundaries of the properties sold were also given as follows: east: House owned by Department of Umoor-E-Mazhabi, west: House of Hyder Ali Saheb, North: Mohd. Ali Saheb, South: Open land. ( 33 ) IN Ex. A2, there was reference to the earlier purchase in 1341 Fasli ( Ex. B1) gift of certain lands in favour of the Syed Safdar Ali. There was also reference to the death of Fatima Bee and consequential partition on 7. 11. 1950. Ali Saheb, South: Open land. ( 33 ) IN Ex. A2, there was reference to the earlier purchase in 1341 Fasli ( Ex. B1) gift of certain lands in favour of the Syed Safdar Ali. There was also reference to the death of Fatima Bee and consequential partition on 7. 11. 1950. The sale deed also contained the date of death of Syed Safdar Ali as 23. 6. 1958. It was also made clear that what was sold under Ex. A2 was the land bequeathed to Syed Safdar Ali by his sister on a portion of which he had constructed a house. The relevant recitals in Ex. A2 are as follows:"do hereby write to the effect that the land admeasuring nine thousand two hundred and fifty sq. yards, situated, at Mahalla Panja Gutta in S. No. 123, was purchased by late Hazratha Fatima Begum Saheba alias Yaseen Bee Saheba daughter of late Syed Mohammed Ali Saheb through registered sale deed bearing No. 301, Book No. (l), Vol. First Pages 1 to 5, dated: 28th Khurdad, 1341 F. Out of the said land, Hazratha Fatima Begum Saheba alias Yaseen Bee Saheba, our ancestor, had orally bequeathed a piece of land and had made him owner and possessor. On this basis, late Syed Safdar Ali had constructed one house on the said bequeathed land and resided in it. After the death of our ancestor late Syed Safdar Ali, we the executants are the possessors and occupants. This is the sale deed of the said property as shown in the Registered Colour in the plan annexed hereto. Further, that Hazratha Fatima Begum Saheba alias Yaseen Bee Saheba has expired on 29th Jamadiul-Awal, 1369 Hijri. Among her heirs, there were her four brothers, one sister and one real mother. Her property was divided among her heirs through the registered partition deed registered on 7th November, 1950 A. D. and our ancestor Syed Safdar Ali got the said sold house apart from the other property in his share of the property left by Hazratha Fatima Begum Saheba alias Yaseen Bee Saheba. Syed Safdar Ali Saheb has expired on 23rd June, 1958 A. D. Among his heirs, except we the executants, no other person is the heir and upon this property we the executants are enjoying our possession and occupation as the owners, for the last 30 years. Syed Safdar Ali Saheb has expired on 23rd June, 1958 A. D. Among his heirs, except we the executants, no other person is the heir and upon this property we the executants are enjoying our possession and occupation as the owners, for the last 30 years. " ( 34 ) EVEN according to the defendants Ex. B1 was the sale deed in favour of Fatima Bee and it was also admitted that Fatima bee was the sister of Syed Safdar AH. It is also not in dispute that under Ex. A4 the property of Fatima Bee were apportioned between the legal heirs. The learned Counsel for the defendants, however, submits that the property which is alleged to have fallen to the share of Syed Safdar Ali is quite different than the suit schedule property inasmuch as in Ex. A4 it was mentioned as Dargah Yousuffain. But, it has to be seen in this regard that the entire property was shared by the brothers viz. , Syed Hyder Ali, Syed Safdar Ali, Syed Ahmedi Ali and Syed Mahmood Ali and all the boundaries are only with references to the property held by Fatima Bee and in the boundaries there is reference to the compound wall of the mosque Bi Saheba and also the house of Syed Safdar Ali. As already noted in Ex. A4, there was clear reference to the gift made by Fatima Bee in favour of Syed Safdar Ali. As can be seen from the boundaries of the property allotted to Syed Hyder Ali, to the south of the property is the mosque and the house of Syed Safdar Ali. In respect of the property allotted to Syed Safdar Ali, it is covered by the houses belonging to Syed Mahmood Ali, Syed Ahmedi AH and on the south also the house belonging to Syed Mahmood Ali. In respect of Syed Ahmedi Ali, with regard to boundaries, on the west it is mentioned as house of B. Bhanu Sahiba and on the east, house of Syed Safdar Ali and on the north public road. Even in respect of the plot allotted to Syed Mehmood Ali, on the south of it, it was mentioned as mosque Bi Saheba, on the west house of Syed Hyder AH. Even in respect of the plot allotted to Syed Mehmood Ali, on the south of it, it was mentioned as mosque Bi Saheba, on the west house of Syed Hyder AH. This document was of the year 1950 and the contention that this partition deed cannot be relied on or it did not contain the property with reference to the mosque and house of Fatima Bee, cannot be said to be true because, even though it is mentioned as Darga Yousufain, it is only mentioned as near Darga Yousufain in the boundaries of the property of the four brothers from which it is clear that it is related to the property which is owned by Fatima Bee and a reference to the mosque of Bi Sahiba is quite evident and this has to be construed only with reference to the property of Fatima Bee and that apart, from the boundaries it can also be noticed that Syed Safdar Ali was also having a separate house and open land as can be seen from the boundaries of the property which fell to the share of Syed Hyder Ali. On the south of it is the compound wall of mosque Bi Sahiba and house of Syed Safdar Ali. ( 35 ) THUS, it can be said that Syed Safdar Ali apart from having acquired the property under partition was also having the property gifted by his sister and this land was sold under Ex. A1 to the plaintiff. ( 36 ) IT is also to be noted in this regard that under Ex. A11, the Director of Endowments had informed the Secretary of the mosque committee on a representation made by it. That the mosque Bi Sahiba along with H. No. F2-456 was entered into Books of Endowments. The following is the relevant extract of Ex. Al1, dated: 31. 12. 1953:"in reply to your letter referred to above, I am directed to inform you that mosque Bi-Sahiba along with H. No. F2-456 is entered in the Books of Endowments. The house in which Syed Safdar Ali resides bears municipal No. F2-454. As such no question of dispossessing Syed Safdar Ali from his house arises. A copy of the letter also endorsed to Syed Safdar Ali" ( 37 ) EX. B15 is an extract from the Wakf Register. The house in which Syed Safdar Ali resides bears municipal No. F2-454. As such no question of dispossessing Syed Safdar Ali from his house arises. A copy of the letter also endorsed to Syed Safdar Ali" ( 37 ) EX. B15 is an extract from the Wakf Register. Even in the said register, there was reference to municipal numbers as far as the municipal number of mosque was concerned, it was mentioned as F-2-454 and as far as the house number was concerned it was F-2-456. The boundaries of the mosque and also house are given separately. The boundaries of the mosque are given as follows: east: Cement Road, west: House of Syed Safdar Ali, north: House of Mahmood Ali, and south: House belonging to Government of Hyderabad,656. The boundaries of the house are as follows: East: Cement Road, West: Land of Syed Safdar Ali, North: Mosque and land, and South: Neighbour s land. ( 38 ) IN column No. 11, the name of Muttawalli and other concerned, it was mentioned (-) Syed Safdar Ali, son of Mohd. Ali. In the remarks column, it is mentioned as follows:"as per the Rules and Regulations of the Wakfs as approved by the Government of Hyderabad in File No. 104/2 of 1952, Entry Section, this property has been got entered in the Wakf Register. " ( 39 ) THEREFORE, as can be seen from this extract, the house and the mosque were given separate numbers as F-2-456 and F-2-453. Even in ex. B-16, the extract of the survey of Wakf properties, it was mentioned as if the properties situated in Ward No. 6, Block No. 3 with municipal No. 6-3-453, Panjagutta. Clause VIII of Column No. 11 is extracted below:"total area as per the map is 5833. 7 sq. yards: 1. Mosque along with open yard having vast area, Reservoir, Urinals, Grave Yard and Maqbera (Tomb) of Bee Saheb, inside the compound of house adjacent to the mosque, Petrol Pump cost of Masjid, Maqbers and Grave Yard 1,01,500/ -. Cost of house and Petrol Pump 10,000/ -. 2. Mosque and Maqbera (Tomb) and grave yard-East: Cement Road, West: House of abdul Sattar, North: Neighbour s open land and houses, and South: Neighbours land and house Masjid and Petrol Pump. 3. House and Petrol Pump: East: Cement Road, West: Neighbour s land, North: Mosque, South: Neighbour s land. Total cost: 1,11,500/ -. 2. Mosque and Maqbera (Tomb) and grave yard-East: Cement Road, West: House of abdul Sattar, North: Neighbour s open land and houses, and South: Neighbours land and house Masjid and Petrol Pump. 3. House and Petrol Pump: East: Cement Road, West: Neighbour s land, North: Mosque, South: Neighbour s land. Total cost: 1,11,500/ -. Petrol Pump and house has been let-out to the tenant Sri Mohsin Ali S/o Fida Ali on the monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. 4. As per the Muntakhab, the endowed house No. 452/ F2 is in the possession of others, the details in respect of thereof are enclosed herewith. " ( 40 ) EX. B17 is the plan covering the area mentioned in the surveyed 5,833 sq. yards. Ex. B18 is the Gazette notification dated 30. 8. 1984. The Wakf property in Punjagutta at Sl. No. 1728. The following is the extract:1. Serial Number:-1728. 2. Name of Taluk or Village or Ward:-Ward No. 6, Block No. 3. 3. Name and situation of Wakf Sunni or Shia-Masjid Bee Saheba No. 6-3-453, Punjagutta with Maqbera Bee Saheba and graveyard Area 5833. 7 sq. yards (S) (25 ). 4. Nature and object of Wakf,-Prayer, Fateha and Burial (R ). 5. Boundaries: North: Open land and house, South: Open land and house, East: Road, West: Open land. 6. Name of Mutawalli-Wakf Board. 7. Gross Income:- Rs. 1,200-00 (Rent ). 8. The amount of land Revenue Cesses, rates and taxes payable in respect of Wakf properties-Rs. 9. The expenses incurred in the realisation of the income and pay or other remuneration of Mutawalli of the Wakf details of Wakf properties attached to the -Wakf (Agricultural): 10. Survey Number: 11. Extent-Dry. 12. Extent. Wet. 13. Non-Agricultural: Nature of property i. e. House/mulgi etc.- One house. 14. Municipal Number: 15. Remarks-Registered: File No. 243, 5/22 of 1952a. D. " ( 41 ) THUS, it has to be seen that the boundaries of the property registered under the Wakf Act and also the boundaries mentioned in the Munthakhab are referable only to F-2-456 and F-2-453 which are equivalent to 6-3-453 and 6-3-456 and they do not relate to the property covered by H. Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455. D. " ( 41 ) THUS, it has to be seen that the boundaries of the property registered under the Wakf Act and also the boundaries mentioned in the Munthakhab are referable only to F-2-456 and F-2-453 which are equivalent to 6-3-453 and 6-3-456 and they do not relate to the property covered by H. Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455. ( 42 ) THUS, considering the documents and the boundaries given therein, it is quite clear that the suit schedule property did not form part of Wakf property, which is being claimed by the Wakf Board and the Mosque Committee. The further question would arise as to whether the property sold under Ex. A1 was the property gifted to Syed Safdar Ali by Fatima Bee. It is to be seen that various documents have been filed by the parties and it is necessary that the documents have to be scrutinised with reference to the date of event. If the documents are more than 30 years old, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 90 of the Evidence Act to the effect that the said document was duly executed, if they are produced from the proper custody. Ex. B1 is the document of 1344-Fasli which was executed in favour of the Fatima Bee in respect of the 9,200 sq. yards of land at Panjagutta and Ex. A2 is the document of 1961 under which the property acquired by Syed Safdar Ali by virtue of the gift from his sister was sold away by his L. Rs. in favour of the Smt. Khanam Janam Saheba. Ex. A4 is a original partition deed dated 11. 11. 1950 while Ex. Bl5 is the certified copy of the sale deed of the year 1344-Fasli. It has been held by the Privy Council in Mahadev Prasad s case, 1920 Indian Cases 368, that the Court as a right to presume genuineness of the document which was not 30 years old either on the date of the suit or on the date of the production, but was 30 years old when the arguments were heard. ( 43 ) IN the instant case, Ex. Al, Ex. A2, Exs. A3, A4 and A11 and Ex. B1 and Ex. ( 43 ) IN the instant case, Ex. Al, Ex. A2, Exs. A3, A4 and A11 and Ex. B1 and Ex. B15 would fall under the category of the documents mentioned under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and the presumption goes in favour of the contents of the documents unless it is rebutted by adducing satisfactory evidence. Most clinching and important evidence which is forthcoming is the premises numbers which will decide the fate of the suit. So long as the premises numbers are different and they could be correlated to the original documents, then denying the relief to the plaintiff on the ground that it is Wakf property would not arise. Learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, however, tried to submit that the certified copies cannot be relied on inasmuch as no witnesses are examined and that is the reason why the trial Court failed to give credence to the genuineness of the documents. But, this contention cannot be accepted in the wake of the judgment of the Privy Council in Basanth Singh v. Brij Raj Saran Singh, AIR 1935 PC 132, wherein it was held:"section 90, Evidence Act, clearly requires the production to the Court of the particular document in regard to which the Court may make the statutory presumption. If the document produced is a copy, admitted under Section 65, as secondary evidence, and it is produced from proper custody and is over thirty years old, then the signatures authenticating the copy may be presumed to be genuine, but it is not sufficient to justify the presumption of due execution of the original under Section 90. " ( 44 ) IN Bai Sakinabai v. Gulam Rasul Umarbhai Shaikh, AIR 1981 Guj. 142 , Justice S. B. Majmudar as he then was while dealing with the presumption of a document of 30 years age observed: "it is true that merely because under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, the documents are presumed to be duly executed if they are more than 30 years old, there is no presumption about the contents of these documents being true, but in the instant case once the execution of the document is presumed, it will show that the Plaintiffs predecessors-in-title who was the signatory to the document had executed the same. Once that is established by Section 90 of the Evidence Act, it would amount to an admission on the part of the executant i. e. Plaintiffs predecessors-in-title about the truth of the statements mentioned therein. " ( 45 ) THE Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, 2001 (3) SCC 530 , while referring to Section 64 of Evidence Act and 57 of Registration Act, it has observed as follows:"10. Before the introduction of Section 51-A in the Land Acquisition Act the Courts have, invariably, taken the view that unless at least one person, having direct knowledge about the transaction mentioned in the sale deed, is examined, the mere marking of the copy of the document was insufficient for the Court to consider the details mentioned in the document as evidence. This Court has also approved the said position as legally correct. Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472 . 10. If the only purpose served by Section 51-A to enable the Court to admit the copy of the document in evidence there was no need for a legislative exercise because even otherwise the certified copy of the document could have been admitted in evidence. Section 64 of the Evidence Act says that "documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. " Section 65 mentions, the cases in which secondary evidence can be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document. One of the cases included in the list is detailed in clause (f) of the section which reads thus: "65. (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence. " 12. Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908 enables anyone to apply for a copy of the entries in Book No. 1 (the said Book is meant for keeping the register of the documents as well as non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property ). When any person applies for a copy of it the same shall be given to him. Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908 enables anyone to apply for a copy of the entries in Book No. 1 (the said Book is meant for keeping the register of the documents as well as non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property ). When any person applies for a copy of it the same shall be given to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of that Act says that: "57 (5) All copies given under this section shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents. " 13. If the position regarding admissibility of the contents of a document which is a certified copy falling within the purview of Section 57 (5) of the Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of Section 51-A in the Land Acquisition Act, could there be any legislative object in incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984 ? It must be remembered that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that for the State officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine them in Court for the purpose of proving such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A was introduced in the land Acquisition Act. When the section says that certified copy of a registered document "may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document" it enables the Court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence. 14. "the words "may be accepted as evidence" in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the Court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the Court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. 14. "the words "may be accepted as evidence" in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the Court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the Court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the Court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned. " 17. In the light of the above discussions we are unable to concur with the observations made by the two-Judge Bench in the decisions in Inder Singh v. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCC 240 and P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1995) 2 SCC 305 , that even inspite of Section 51-A of the Act certified copies of the sale deed could not be considered without examining persons connected with the transactions mentioned therein. " ( 46 ) THEREFORE, the Court has to consider the genuineness of the document de hors the admission of the document in evidence. From the evidence adduced by the parties it is seen that Syed Safdar Ali, who was none else than the brother of Fatima Bee, was the Mutavalli of the mosque and it is also admitted by the defendants in their written statement and after the said property was partitioned by her brothers, the other legal heirs under the Muslim Law, the properties which fell to their share were also demarcated in the plan in which the land which was earmarked for mosque was separately shown. In such a situation can it be said that the property is forming part of the property set apart to the mosque and the house. The documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and also the documents filed by the defendants themselves prove to the effect that what was registered as Wakf was only relating to premises No. 6-3-453. Then the question that would fall for consideration is whether the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the title can be said to be justified. Then the question that would fall for consideration is whether the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the title can be said to be justified. It is one thing to say that it is Wakf property or it is a Wakf by user. It is yet another thing to say that the property is registered under the Wakf Act and the property covered by the Wakf Act is identified by the premises numbers. But, in the instant case, the property is sought to be identified by premises numbers 6-3-453 and 6-3-456 as far as the mosque and the house are concerned, but, the suit schedule property is 6-3-454 and 6-3-455 which is not the property of the Wakf. Even though the said premises numbers are mentioned in Exs. B15, B16 and B17, but in the injunction petition filed by the Masjid Committee it proceeds as if the property covered by premises Nos. 6-3-454 and 6-3-455 form part of the Wakf property. That itself establishes that the stand of the committee is contrary to the documents relied on by them viz. , Exs. B15, B16 and B17. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff has to prove his case de hors the averments or the evidence adduced by the defendants. But, in the instant case, it is not the only case that is being tried, but it is the suit filed by the Masjid Committee as well as the suit filed by the plaintiff that are being tried, jointly and the evidence was let in by both the parties. In such a case, the principle of shifting of burden would not arise and the matter has to be considered on the material and the documents available on record. Therefore, a close scrutiny of the evidence and documents filed by the plaintiff would clinchingly establish that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex. A1 which is correlated to Exs. A2 to A4. It is also to be noted that Exs. B15, B16 and B17 lend support to the case of the plaintiff rather than lending support to the case of the defendants. In such a situation, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish the title is absolutely ill-founded and the same is liable to be set aside. B15, B16 and B17 lend support to the case of the plaintiff rather than lending support to the case of the defendants. In such a situation, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish the title is absolutely ill-founded and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court on this aspect is set aside and the plaintiff is declared to be the title holder of the suit schedule property. ( 47 ) THEREFORE, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding rendered by the trial Court on issue No. 1 viz. , whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title to the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative for declaration of possession of the suit schedule property has to be accepted. Even though it is sought to be contended that the property is not in possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, injunction cannot be claimed, but, yet, in the earlier case, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court has inspected the premises in question and found that two rooms are in the possession of the tenant of the plaintiff. But, in view of the fact that the plaintiff is declared as the title holder of the suit property, he is also entitled for possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the judgment and decree in OS No. 556 of 1983 is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for, for title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. ( 48 ) IN view of the finding rendered in CCCA No. 71 of 1993, the judgment and decree of the lower Court in OS No. 17 of 1986 is set aside and the suit is dismissed. OS No. 604 of 1983 filed by Saradhi Engineering Corporation is decreed as prayed for. ( 49 ) IN view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.