Tamil Nadu
Wakf Board Vs. Larabsha Darga Panruti [2007] Insc 1175 (23 November 2007)
Tarun
Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam P. Sathasivam, J.
1)
This appeal is preferred by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Chief
Executive Officer, Chennai against the final judgment dated 25.6.2004 and
decree dated 28.6.2004 passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No.
641 of 1996 whereby a learned Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal
reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restoring
the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
2) The
facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
Originally
the suit property was Wakf property being a part of a Wakf property belonging
to one Noor Mohammedsha Aulia Darga. One Bahadursha, the 5th Janishan of Noor
Mohammad Shah Khadari Darga, Panruti conveyed the suit property to his disciple
Shabansha and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same through his
disciple Larabsha.
Larabsha
conveyed the suit property to his wife Khathija Bi by way of a Hibba with the
intention of doing certain pious, religious and charitable purposes. Khathija
Bi conveyed the suit property to her grandson Syed Umar. After the death of Syed
Umar, his wife Safia Bi was managing the suit property and was performing the
said pious, religious and charitable purposes. In 1978, Safia Bi filed O.S. No.
189 of 1978 in the sub-Court, Cuddalore for declaration that the suit property
is not wakf property and it is their private property. The said suit was
dismissed holding that the suit property is wakf property belonging to Larabsha
Darga. Against the said order, Safia Bi filed an appeal being A.S. No. 108 of
1980 in the District Court, Cuddalore and the same was dismissed on 22.4.1983.
Aggrieved
by that judgment and order, Safia Bi filed a second appeal being S.A. No. 1104
of 1983 in the High Court. In the meanwhile, on 8.8.1985, Safia Bi died and Adbarbasha
and Abdulsalam were impleaded collusively and fraudulently.
Heeralal
and Khaleel Basha filed a petition in A.No. 20 of 1985 before the Tamil Nadu Wakf
Board, Madras to recognize and appoint them as hereditary Muthavllis to Larabsha
Darga and its properties and the Wakf Board after holding enquiry appointed the
respondents herein-plaintiffs as joint Muthavallis recognizing their right to
be hereditary trustees and legal representatives of late Larabsha. The High
Court on 10.1.1990 dismissed the second appeal holding that the suit property
is wakf property and not a private trust property.
Against
the said dismissal, S.L.P. (c) No. 2486 of 1990 was filed by the respondents
herein/plaintiffs before this Court and the same was dismissed. Respondents
herein filed O.S. No. 20 of 1992 in the sub-Court, Cuddalore for a declaration
that the suit Darga and its property belongs to a wakf i.e., Wakf-alal-aulad,
and the Wakf Board had no jurisdiction to appoint Muthavllis for the said Darga
and for injunction restraining the Wakf Board from interfering with the suit Darga
and its property except claiming contribution from the net income of the wakf.
The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit Darga and its property
belong to a private wakf. Aggrieved by the said order, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
filed an appeal being A.S. No. 206 of 1994 in the District Court, Cuddalore and
the same was allowed holding that the suit Darga and its property do not belong
to a private wakf.
Against
that order, the respondents herein filed a second appeal being S.A. No. 641 of
1996 in the High Court. The High Court allowed the second appeal reversing the
judgment of the first appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the trial
Court. Hence the present appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by way of
special leave petition before this Court.
3)
Heard Mr. J.M. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.S.
Misra and Mr. K. Samidurai, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents.
4) Mr.
J.M. Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant-Tamil Nadu Wakf Board mainly
contended that in view of the decision in the earlier proceedings filed by Safia
Bi and the ultimate decision in Second Appeal No. 1104 of 1983 which was
affirmed by this Court, the subsequent proceedings in respect of the same
issue/property cannot be proceeded with and hit by the principle of res judicata.
On the other hand Mr. P.S. Misra, learned senior counsel for the respondents
after taking us through the earlier as well as the present proceedings
submitted that the decision rendered therein has no bearing to the issue raised
in the subsequent proceedings.
He
also contended that in view of Ex.A-22 (proforma report) and other materials,
the conditions/objects therein, the plaintiff had proved their case that the
suit property belongs to Wakf-alal-aulad and the trial Court rightly decreed
the suit though the lower appellate court wrongly concluded as it belongs to Wakf
property and the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the decree of the
trial Court.
5) In
order to understand the dispute raised, it is relevant to refer the geneology
of the family of late Larabsha referred to in the plaint in O.S. 20 of 1992 on
the file of the subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
LARABSHA
(HUSBAND) DIED Kathija Bi (Wife) (Died) | | Syed Magdoom (Son) (died) | | | | |
| | | ______________________________ | | | | | Safia Bi | (died on 8.8.1985) |
Issueless _______________________ | | | | Sainath Syed Ali Hi (died) _________
__________ | | | | (Son) (Son) Khaleel Basha Heeralal (2nd Plaintiff) (1st
Plaintiff) The plaintiffs therein prayed for a decree declaring that Larabsha Dharga
and its properties described in the schedule appended in the plaint are a
private Wakf/Wakf-alal-aulad.
They
also prayed for declaration that Hiralal and Kalilal Basha (plaintiffs) are the
hereditary trustees of Larabsha Dharga and also prayed for permanent
injunction. The learned trial Judge after considering the relevant materials
both oral and documentary particularly on the basis of Ex. A1 and A2 granted
decree as prayed for in favour of the plaintiffs. In the appeal, namely, A.S.
206 on the file of District Court, Cuddalore filed by Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
the appellate Judge basing reliance on earlier judgment of the High Court in
Second Appeal No. 1104 of 1983 (Ex. A3) accepted the stand of the Wakf Board
and concluded that the suit property is a Wakf property and not private Wakf-alal-aulad
as claimed by the plaintiffs. The said decision was taken up to the High Court
by way of Second Appeal No. 641 of 1996 by the plaintiffs.
The
High Court framed the following substantial question of law:- Whether the
lower appellate court had failed to consider absence of specific plea of denial
in the written statement that the said Dharga is not a private Wakf Based
on the same, heard the argument on either side and finally by the impugned
judgment allowed the appeal and restored the decree of the trial Court. In the
light of the controversy between the parties by way of suits, first appeals and
second appeals, we verified the reliefs prayed in the earlier proceedings,
stand taken by both the parties and ultimate decision including the one taken
by the High Court in second appeal No. 1104 of 1983.
6)
Section 3 (l) of the Wakf Act, 1954 defines wakf as under:
(l)
wakf means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam or
any other person of any movable or immovable property for any purpose
recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes-
(i) a wakf
by user but such wakf shall not cease to be a wakf by reason only of the user
having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser;
(ii)
grants including mashrut-ul-khidmat, muafies, khairati, qazi services, madadmash
for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable;
and
(iii) a
wakf-alal-aulad; and wakif means any person making such dedication;
Provided
that in the case of a dedication by a person not professing Islam, the Wakf
shall be void if, on the death of such person, any objection to such dedication
is raised by one or more of his legal representatives; The plaintiffs
claim that the suit property belongs to private Wakf, Wakf-alal-aulad and it is
not a public Wakf. On the other hand, it is the specific stand of the Wakf
Board the same is a public Wakf. As said earlier, the High Court heavily relied
on Ex.A-22 which is a proforma maintained by the Wakf Board. The learned Judge
has extracted all the details/entries made in the proforma. Those details are
available in the High Courts judgment and we perused the same. It mentions
that the object of the Wakf is for the support of feeding the fakirs and
lighting the tomb of Larabsha and to do fateah. It further shows that these
services are to be rendered without alienating the properties. Name of the
beneficiaries are noted as Mrs. Safia Bi, wife of Syed Umar, Larabsha Dharga.
In column-9, the rule of succession, it is stated that hereditary as per
T.D. It further shows that out of the income derived from the suit
property, a portion of the same is meant for pious, religious and charitable
purposes and remaining was used for the maintenance of the family. Column-17 of
the remarks states that originally R.S.No.24, 205 acres dry belong to Nur
Mohammed Dargah, Panruti. One Inayath Shah a sixth successor Jainishin conveyed
this land containing houses and shops to one of his disciples shabansha by
means of settlement (Hibba) in 1939. This Shanbans, in his turn made
a settlement in favour of Larabsha who is the paternal grand father of the
Husband of Safia Bi, who is now enjoying the lands. No accounts are maintained.
Only Fateah is done on every Thursday evening and the tomb is lighted daily. At
present Safia Bi is the Muthavalli. A few rupees are spent for the Dargah and
the balance is utilized for the maintenance of the family. The above details
furnished in the proforma clearly reveal that succession to the office of Muthavallis
is by hereditary and the income has got to be spent for pious, religious and
charitable purposes and a portion was also used for management of the family.
7) As
rightly observed by the High Court, inasmuch as a portion of the income is to
be spent for the family apart from pious, religious and charitable purposes, it
satisfies the character of a private Wakf i.e. Wakf-alal-aulad. The said
document i.e. Ex.A-22 also supports the claim of the plaintiffs that they are
the hereditary Muthavallis of the private Wakf.
These
aspects have been fully considered and rightly concluded by the trial Judge as
well as the High Court. On the other hand, as rightly pointed out by learned
senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court on mis-construing
the decision in S.A. No.1104 of 1983 wrongly allowed the appeal. As observed
earlier, in second Appeal No. 1104 of 1983, the High Court had no occasion to
consider whether it is a private Wakf or a public Wakf, but, on the other hand,
in the earlier suit, the plaintiffs claimed the suit property as their private
property and not as private Wakf property and only in the said circumstance the
High Court in Second Appeal No. 1104 of 1983 rendered the finding that the suit
property is a Wakf property and it is not a private trust property. Inasmuch as
in appreciation of acceptable material, the trial Court as well as the High
Court arrived at a conclusion that the suit property is a private Wakf and not
a private property, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the High Court
that the decision in S.A. 1104 of 1983 has no bearing to the issue in the
latter proceeding. The High Court has also rightly concluded from Ex.A1 that
there is no indication that the Wakf is a public Wakf and Hibba only indicates
that certain things have got to be carried out in respect of pious, religious
and charitable purpose and proforma Ex.A22 supports the claim of the
plaintiffs. Looking at any angle, in the light of the materials placed
particularly additional documents Ex.A22, A23 and A24 which were received on
the basis of an application which was ordered on 20.04.2004, we are in entire
agreement with the conclusion arrived by the High Court and do not find any
valid ground for interference.
8) In
the light of the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
