Vacant Land Used Yearly for Ashar Is Still Possession Protected by Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction for Religious Use

“The plaintiff proved de jure possession by establishing continuous religious use of the site to perform Ashar every Milad-un-Nabi”— In a significant affirmation of the right to religious use of property, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld a permanent injunction granted in favour of a plaintiff who used a vacant site annually for performing Ashar during Milad-un-Nabi. The Court held that such consistent and long-standing religious use constitutes legal possession, sufficient to restrain interference.
“Even a vacant site can be under possession if it is used continuously and lawfully, especially for a religious purpose.”

“The Sacred Performance of Ashar Every Milad-Un-Nabi Established Lawful Possession”—Court Emphasizes Spiritual Continuity Over Physical Boundaries
The case revolved around an open piece of land referred to as the Pedda Asharkhana in Adoni, Kurnool District. The plaintiff, Syed Nizamuddin, claimed his family had traditionally conducted Ashar rituals on the site for generations, supported by the Wakf Board. The defendant Abdul Shukur, on the other hand, contended he ran a wood depot there through a lease to his late brother.

Rejecting the defence, the Court found: “Plaintiff proved the continuous enjoyment of the site as a sacred place to perform Ashar every year… therefore, plaintiff proved de jure possession over the site on the date of the suit.”
Justice Chakravarthi observed that a site need not be occupied daily to be lawfully possessed—periodic and ritualistic use backed by evidence of tradition and acknowledgment from Wakf authorities was enough.

“Possession in Law Includes Symbolic and Ritualistic Use When Supported by Evidence”—Burden on Defendant to Prove Lease
The Court castigated the defendant for failing to prove his claim of a lease from the Wakf Board, noting that: “He did not summon any officer from the Wakf Board to prove the execution or authorization of the lease deed.”
The lease document (Ex.B-1) was not admitted in evidence properly. The Court held the defendant had failed under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that special facts within one’s knowledge must be proved by that party.

“Mere Interference Does Not Confer Right”—Court Says Defendant Was a Wrongdoer Without Any Proven Title
The Court emphasized that the right to injunctive relief depends on the plaintiff's possession, not on whether the defendant has a better title. Referring to Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, the Court reiterated:
“A person in settled possession of property can obtain injunction even against a true owner who seeks to dispossess him otherwise than in due course of law.”

Affirming the lower appellate court’s decree of permanent injunction, the High Court concluded:m“The plaintiff’s lawful possession through performance of religious rites is established. The second appeal is devoid of merit.”
This judgment reaffirms the legal protection afforded to customary and religious occupation, even where the land is not permanently built upon or continuously occupied.

Date of Decision: 8 May 2025