SECRETARY, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and another
This appeal by special leave arises from a dispute regarding the status of property bearing City Survey No. D/1396 in Hyderabad, which the appellant, the Evacuee Trust Property Board, claimed was attached to a religious trust. The appellant challenged the transfer of this property to the respondent, contending it was evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether the appellant provided sufficient evidence to establish that the property was indeed a religious trust rather than private property subject to inheritance. The Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed the application, finding the evidence—specifically entries in the Property Register Card describing the property as a 'Tikano'—vague, inconclusive, and contradictory, as the document also cited inheritance as the source of title. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to substantiate its claim that the property was trust property. The judgment affirms the principle that mere descriptive entries in official records, when contradicted by evidence of private inheritance, are insufficient to establish the existence of a public religious trust.
- Is a property entry in a register describing it as a 'Tikano' sufficient evidence to establish it as a public religious trust?
- Can property described as being subject to inheritance be simultaneously classified as trust property without further evidence?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of property if the evidence is found to be vague and inconclusive?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this appeal by special leave relates to property bearing City Survey No, D/1396 situate at Jumman Shah Jo Pir, Hyderabad. It was treated as evacuee property and transferred to respondent No, 1 by the Settlement Authorities. On 1-3-1967, the Evacuee Trust Board, Hyderabad, the appellant, moved an application before Mr. Muhammad Azhar who was vested with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, for a declaration that the said property was attached to a religious trust and its transfer in favour of respondent No, 1 was illegal and void.
2. Mr. Muhammad Azhar dismissed the application with the following observations:- "A reference to the Exhs. 2, 3 and 4 filed by the applicant Trust will show that the property in suit is entered as a Tikano, which was inherited by Chandar Singh, Sukhramsingh, Bhoj Singh and Bhagwan Singh, sons of Hira Singh, each having -/4/-annas share in it. I find that these entries are the only evidence on which the applicant Trust relies, that these entries are not supported by any other evidence on the record, that they are vague and inconclusive, and it cannot be said that a trust was created and that was for public purposes. As a matter of fact the obvious presumption in this case is that a property which was subject to an inheritance by the heirs was a privately owned property.
3. ' In view of the above, I hold that there is no evidence on the record to establish the contentions of the applicant trust, and that the delay in filing this application is not justified."
4. ' From the order of Mr. Muhammad Azhar, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court but this too was dismissed. The appellant has now come in appeal to this Court.
2. In support of this appeal the appellant has relied before us entirely upon an extract from the Property Register Card. Although in this document, the property has been described as a Tikano but the origin of the title has been shown as inheritance. Neither any evidence was led nor any explanation offered how the source of title of the Trust Property could be described as inheritance.
5. In the circumstances, Mr. Muhammad Azhar was justified in making the observation that the case of the appellant was based upon vague and inconclusive record. The High Court therefore very properly declined to interfere with his order. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.