TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARDversusLARABSHA DARGA PANRUTI

A                      TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD
                                       v.
                      LARABSHA DARGA PA.~RUTI

                           NOVEMBER 23, 2007
B
         [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.)


       Wakf--Nature of-Whether private or public-Money spent on
  feeding fakirs and lighting tomb of the D~rgah and to do fateah-
C Portion ofincome spent/or family ofMuthavllis-Also the succession
  is hereditary-In the circumstances, held it is a private wakf.
        In 1978, SB filed suit for declaration that suit property is not wakf
  property but is their private property. The trial Court dismissed the suit
  holding that the suit property was wakf property belonging to the
D Dargah. First appellate Court upheld the same. During pendency of
  second appeal being S. No.1104 of1983, SB died. A petition was filed
  for appointment of hereditary Muthavllis to Dargah and its properties
  and the WakfBoard after holding enquiry appointed the respondents
  as joint Muthavllis recognizing their right to be hereditary trustees. High
E Court dismissed the second appeal holding that the suit property is Wakf
  property and not a private trust property. SLP before this Court was
  also dismissed.
        Respondent filed suit for declaration that the suit Dargah and its
  property is private wakf and not public wakf. Trial Court decreed the
F suit. On appeal, first appellate Court held that suit Darga and its
  properties do not belong to private wakf. On appeal, High Court
  restored the judgment of trial Court. Hence the present appeal.
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G       HELD: 1. The High Court heavily relied on Ex.A-22 which is a
  proforma maintained by the Wakf Board. It mentions thatthe object of
  the Wakfis for the support offeedingthe fakirs and lighting the tomb
  ofLarabsha and to do fateah. It further shows that these services are
  to be rendered without alienating the properties. It further shows that
H                                     518
              TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD v. LARABSHA                           519
  ~
                        DARGAPANRUTI
       out of the income derived from the suit property, a portion of the same A
       is meant for pious, religious and charitable purposes and remaining was
       used forthe maintenance of the family. Column-17 of the remarks states
       that originally R.S. No. 24, 205 acres dry belong to 'N'. His sixth
       successor conveyed this land containing houses and shops to one of his
       disciples by means of settlement ('Hibba') in 1939. This disciple in his B
       turn made a settlement in favour of the paternal grand father of the
       Husband of SB and SB 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 SB is the Muthavalli. A few rupees are
       spent for the Dargah and the balance is utilized for the maintenance of c
       the family. The above details furnished in the proforma clearly reveal
       that succession to the office ofMuthavallis 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.
                                            [Para 6) [524-D, E, F, G; 525-A, BJ D
             2. 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 E
       fully considered and rightly concluded by the trial Judge as well as the
       High Court. In the earlier suit, the plaintiffs claimed the suit property
       as their private property and not as private Wakfproperty and only in
       the said circumstance the High Court in Second Appeal No.1104 of1983
       rendered the finding that the suit property is a Wakf property and it is F
       not a private trust property. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court
       that the decision in S.A.1104 of1983 has no bearing to the issue in the
       latter proceeding is correct. The High Court has also rightly concluded
       from Ex.Al thatthere is no indication thatthe Wakfis a public Wakf
       and Hibba only indicates that certain things have got to be carried out G
-·~·   in respect of pious, religious and charitable purpose and proforma
       Ex.A22 supports the claim of the plaintiffs.
                                          [Para 6 and 7] (525-B, C, D, E, F, G]
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1559 of
       2007.                                                                      H
    520           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A        From the final Judgment dated 25.6.2004 and Decree dated
    28.6.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 641
    of 1996.
          J.M. Khanna and A. Sathath Khan for the Appellant.
B       P.S. Misra, K. Samidurai, N. Shoba, Sri Ram J. Thalapathy and V.
    Adhimoolam for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         P. SATHASIVAM, J. (1) This appeal is preferred by the Tamil
  Nadu WakfBoard represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Chennai
C 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.
D
        (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
E 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
F 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. 189of1978 in the sub-Court,
  Cuddalore for declaration that the suit property is not wakf property and
G it is th~ir 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. 108of1980 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
H being S.A. No. 1104of1983 in the High Court. In the meanwhile, on
  TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD v. LARABSHA DARGA                              521
          PANRUTI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
8.8.1985, Safia Bi died and Adbarbasha and Abdulsalam were impleaded A
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 B
to be hereditary trustees and legal representatives oflate Larabsha. The
High Court on I 0.1 .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. c
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
WakfBoard from interfering with the suit Darga and its property except 0
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 WakfBoard filed
an appeal being A.S. No. 206of1994 in the District Court, Cuddalore
and the same was allowed holding that the suit Darga and its property E
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.                                      F
     (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 G
WakfBoard 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

                                                                             H
    522            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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. 20of1992 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
                       LARABSHA (IIDSBAND) DIED
D
                          Kathija Bi (Wife) (Died)
                                          I
                                          I
                                  Syed Magdoom (Son)
E                                       (died)


     I
     I                   Safia Bi
     I                  (died on 8.8.1985)
F    .._I_ _ _ _ _      I_ss_ueless
    I                         I
    I                         I
    Sainath           Syed Ali
    Hi                (died)
G
    I                     I
    I                     I
  (Son)           (Son)
  Khaleel Basha Heeralal
H (2nd Plaintiff) (1st Plaintiff)
                 TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD v. LARABSHA DARGA                              523
                         PANRUTI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
               The plaintiffs therein prayed for a decree declaring that Larabsha Dharga A
               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 Kalila! Basha (plaintiffs) are the hereditary trustees ofLarabsha
               Dharga and also prayed for pennanent injunction. The learned trial Judge
               after considering the relevant materials both oral and documentary B
               particularly on the basis of Ex. Al 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 WakfBoard, the appellate
               Judge basing reliance on earlier judgment of the High Court in Second
               Appeal No. 1104of1983 (Ex. A3) accepted the stand of the WakfBoard C
               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 oflaw:-
                                                                                             D
                      • "yvhether 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 E
               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. F
               1104ofl983.
                    (6) Section 3 (I) of the Wakf Act, 1954 defines "wakf' as under:
                      (I) "wakf' means the pennanent dedication by a person professing
                      Islam or any other person of any movable or immovable property G
    ~- __...          for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious
                      or charitable and includes-
                     (i) a wakfby user but such wakf shall not cease to be a wakfby
                         reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period
                                                                                            H
    524            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A              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

B          (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
C          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
D stand of the WakfBoard 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 WakfBoard. The learned Judge has extracted all the details/entries
  made in the proforma. Those details are available in the High Court's
  judgment and we perused the same. It mentions that the object of the
E Wakf is for the support of feeding the fakirs and lighting the tomb of
  Larabsha and to do fatcah. 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."
F 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
G conveyed this land containing houses and shops to one of his disciples
  shabansha by means of settlement ('Hibba') in 1939. This Shanbans, in
  his tum made a settlement in favour ofLarabsha 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
H
   TAMILNADU WAKF BOARD v. LARABSHA DARGA                                 525
          PANRUTI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
and the tomb is lighted daily. At present Safia Bi is the Muthavalli. A few A
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 ofMuthavallis is by hereditary
and the income has got to be spent for pious, religious a.'1d charitable
purposes and a portion was also used for management of the family.          B

       (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        C
 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             D
 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 Wakfproperty and only in the said circumstance the High Court             E
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            F
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
cone luded from Ex.A 1 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            G
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
                                                                                  H
   526            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 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.
B D.G.                                                     Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                   r