JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having consecutively lost the litigation in two Civil Courts, appellant Shiv Raj Kumar Kapoor has challenged the impregnability of the judgment and order rendered by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee, on 24.12.1998 in Civil Suit No. 148 of 1991 as well as the judgment and order dated 22.03.2003, dismissing the appeal No. 09 of 1999, preferred by the appellant Shiv Raj Kumar Kapoor against the judgment of the Trial Court. 2. Dispute pertains to a land beside a mosque in Kasba Manglore, Roorkee. The mosque is popularly known as Daduwali Mosque. The land, before the zamindari abolition, bore Khewat No. 377 and 484 ad measuring 17 biswas. After the zamindari abolition, these khewat numbers changed to Khasra No. 2492, 2493 and 2494. 3. Having perused both the judgments of the courts below, it transpires that the said land was purchased way back in 1927 by Mosque Daduwali through its Mutawalli Sri Bundu. Name of Sri Bundu was entered as Aasami in the revenue records as being Mutawalli of the said mosque. After the zamindari abolition, the grandsons of Bundu, namely Basheer, Ali Hasan and Sageer got their names mutated, by way of depositing ten times land revenue, as a Sirdar. So, representing himself as the owner of the land Mr. Basheer sold his share to Manjoor, his real uncle, and Ali Hasan sold his share to Gulam Sabir. With the passage of time, the said land was sold by Gulam Sabir and Sageer to the appellant-plaintiff Shiv Raj Kumar Kapoor way back in 1991 and thereafter the present appellant filed a Suit No. 148 of 1991 against the defendants seeking prohibition not to interfere in his possession. That suit was dismissed on 24.12.1998 and the appeal whereagainst also failed. 4. The following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court at the time of admitting this appeal for hearing:- “Whether the courts below have erred in law in holding that the property in question was purchased by Waqf-Dadupeer and is the said transfer valid in the eyes of law?” 5. Having heard the rival submissions and on going through the impugned judgments, it is amply clear that the property, in question, was purchased by Waqf Dadupeer, as has been described above. Having heard the rival submissions and on going through the impugned judgments, it is amply clear that the property, in question, was purchased by Waqf Dadupeer, as has been described above. Nothing has been shown by the appellant-plaintiff as to in what way this transfer in favour of Waqf Dadupeer was invalid in the eye of law. Merely by depositing ten times of the land revenue, the grandsons or alleged successors of Bundu could not have acquired any ownership/right over the property in question because the property, itself, was under the ownership of Mosque Daduwali, and Bundu was a sheer priest or Mutawalli to take care of the property of mosque. So before the zamindari abolition, no right had incurred in favour of Bundu. In all the revenue records, this property has been indicated in the name of Mosque Daduwali and so, the Assistant Commissioner, Waqf, Saharanpur, has held its status as such in the Revenue Case No.588/1979-1981. Against the judgment of Assistant Commissioner, rendered on 31st July 1982, no appeal or revision was ever filed. So, its status, otherwise also, became final, as held by the Assistant Commissioner, Waqf, Saharanpur. 6. In view of what have been stated above, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. 7. Let, the Lower Court record be sent back.