Government title prevails over Wakf claim where documentary records outweigh historical assertions and adverse possession is not strictly proved.

Government title to the suit properties was upheld because contemporaneous records, including ancient protected monument registers and CTS entries, showed the properties in the Government's name and supported acquisition and continued possession; historical assertions of Wakf ownership could not override admissible documentary evidence, so the Wakf notification was void and inoperative. The alternative plea of adverse possession failed because there was no clear pleading or proof of hostile, open, continuous and exclusive possession with animus to possess for the statutory period, including the commencement and continuance of such possession. The Government's title and possession were therefore affirmed and the Wakf claim rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit properties were Government property acquired and protected under the ancient monuments regime and not Wakf property, and whether the Wakf notification declaring them as Wakf properties was valid; (ii) whether the alternative plea of adverse possession was made out in favour of the respondent.

Issue (i): Whether the suit properties were Government property acquired and protected under the ancient monuments regime and not Wakf property, and whether the Wakf notification declaring them as Wakf properties was valid.

Analysis: The available contemporaneous records, including the register of ancient protected monuments and the CTS entries, showed the properties in the name of the Government and supported the claim of acquisition and continued governmental possession. The claim of Wakf title rested largely on historical assertions, but in a civil title dispute such assertions could not prevail over admissible documentary evidence. Since the properties were not shown to be existing Wakf properties at the relevant time, the Wakf Board could not validly assert control over them under the survey provisions applicable to existing Wakfs. The notification treating the properties as Wakf properties, therefore, could not stand.

Conclusion: The suit properties were held to be Government properties and not Wakf properties, and the Wakf notification was held to be void and inoperative.

Issue (ii): Whether the alternative plea of adverse possession was made out in favour of the respondent.

Analysis: A plea of adverse possession requires clear pleading and proof of hostile, open, continuous and exclusive possession with animus to possess in denial of the true owner's title. The respondent did not specifically plead or prove the essential ingredients, including the point of commencement of adverse possession, the nature of hostile possession, and its continuance for the statutory period. Since the plea was not established by the necessary factual foundation, the alternative finding of adverse possession could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Government's title and possession over the suit properties were upheld, the Wakf claim failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Wakf authority cannot displace a prior governmental title to property by relying on historical assertions without admissible proof, and a plea of adverse possession succeeds only on strict proof of hostile, open, continuous and exclusive possession with animus to possess for the statutory period.

---