Supreme Court limits possession rights over Dargah in Article 226 case; Constitution doesn't alter, appeal allowed.

The Supreme Court refrained from determining possession and title issues in a case involving a petition under Article 226 for hereditary rights over a Dargah. The Court held that the respondent's possession rights were held in abeyance by a Firman of the Nizam pending civil court adjudication. It emphasized that the Constitution did not alter this position and rejected the High Court's decision granting possession to the respondent. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and dismissing the respondent's petition for a writ, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 for mandamus, hereditary rights over Dargah, validity of Firman of the Nizam, possession and management of Dargah, conflict between Firman and Constitution, effect of Civil Courts' decision on possession rights.

Analysis:
The respondent filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus against the Director of Endowments of the Hyderabad Government for possession of a Dargah and hereditary lands. The High Court granted the writ, but the State of Hyderabad appealed. The respondent claimed hereditary rights as Sajjadas and Mutawallis of the Dargah. The Ecclesiastical Department took over supervision under a Firman of the Nizam, pending civil court's decision on possession rights. The High Court granted possession to the respondent based on conflicting views of the judges, citing the Firman's expiration and lack of wakf status for the Dargah.

The Supreme Court refrained from delving into possession and title facts to avoid prejudicing future litigation. The Court emphasized that the respondent's possession rights were held in abeyance by the Firman without subsequent court orders removing the bar. The Nizam's absolute authority through the Firman deprived claimants of immediate possession rights until established in civil courts. The Court held that the Constitution did not alter this position, as it only guarantees existing rights without retrospective effect.

The Court rejected the High Court's reliance on a decision regarding the Firman's ultra vires nature post-Constitution. The Court clarified that inconsistent laws remain valid for past transactions unless explicitly invalidated. The respondent's civil court litigation failed to establish his right to possession, as confirmed by the High Court's judgment dismissing the suit. The respondent's possession claims were based on equating his possession with his brother's, but the Court emphasized the necessity of a civil court decision to claim possession.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and dismissing the respondent's petition for a writ. No costs were awarded in any of the Courts involved in the matter.

---