Wakf property and second appeal limits: concurrent factual findings cannot be disturbed absent a substantial question of law.

A property was treated as wakf where the sale deed recitals showed an original dedication by Sultanji for the benefit of the Muslim community, with management rights reserved to him, and the dedication was for a purpose recognised as pious, religious or charitable under Muslim law; the plaintiff society's registration did not change that character. In second appeal, the High Court could not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arose or the findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence. The concurrent factual findings were therefore impermissibly reversed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit property was a wakf property on the basis of the original dedication and recitals in the sale deeds; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact without a substantial question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the suit property was a wakf property on the basis of the original dedication and recitals in the sale deeds.

Analysis: The recital in the sale deeds showed that the property had originally been dedicated by Sultanji for the benefit of the Muslim community, with a right of management reserved to him. The dedication was for a purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, and the subsequent user and conveyance were in furtherance of that dedication. The fact that the plaintiff was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act did not alter the character of the property.

Conclusion: The suit property was a wakf property, and the finding against the plaintiff was correct.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact without a substantial question of law.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits interference in second appeal only on a substantial question of law. The dispute here turned on a pure question of fact already decided concurrently by the trial court and the first appellate court. The High Court reversed those findings without demonstrating perversity, lack of evidence, or any substantial question of law, and thus exceeded the permissible limits of second appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings in second appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the property was rightly treated as wakf property and the High Court's interference with concurrent factual findings was impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless a substantial question of law arises or the findings are shown to be perverse or unsupported by material on record.

---