Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Facts leading to the filing of the revision applications are as follows:

The first Mutawalli, Md. Shafi died on 20.12.1960 and the second Mutawalli, Md. Kammoo Mia died on 02.02.1980. On the death of Md. Shafi, the second Mutawalli nominated Md. Taiyab to succeed Md. Shafi to the office of the Joint Mutawalli vide his letter dated 19.2.1973 to the Assam Wakf Board (which had territorial jurisdiction over Meghalaya Wakf Board as well). However, the Wakf Board did not recognize Md. Taiyab as joint Mutawalli and instead appointed Md. Sulaiman as joint Mutawalli vide order dated 4.3.1973. After the death of Haji Md. Kammoo Mia on 02.02.1980, the Meghalaya Wakf Board appointed Md. Sulaiman as the sole Mutawalli vide order dated 7.2.1980. The Board rejected the claim of Md. Taiyab to the said office on the ground that he does not belong to the family line of the Settlors.

9. On the other hand, Shri Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2, Md. Sulaiman submitted that neither Md. Kammoo Mia was a Settlor nor he was the owner of the trust property and as such, none of his descendants are entitled to the office of Mutawalliship. It was also contended that both Md. Shafi and Md. Kammoo Mia were appointed as Joint Mutawallis only during their life time and on their death, no person can be appointed as Joint Mutawalli and the office of Mutawalliship should be confined to the lineal descendants of the Settlor alone. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Settlor had intended that the successor Mutawallis should also be from the family line of the Settlor and since the petitioners are not direct descendants of the Settlor they are not entitled to inherit the Mutawalliship. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 also referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Abdul Qavi Khan v. God Almighty through Asaf Ali Khan and Ors. to buttress a point that the descendants through female line are not considered as the family members. This authority is arising out of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913 to examine whether step-daughter of the Wakfs sister was also entitled to maintenance. However, the case before me is not related to any claim for maintenance. Hence, the authority is not applicable in this case.

23. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners for being appointed as Mutawallis on the ground that they are the not lineal descendants of the Settlor of the trust. Learned Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that in Clause (2) of the Wakf Deed, the Settlor had intended to appoint joint Mutawallis from the family line and no restriction was put on the founder Mutawallis to appoint their successors, even through female descendants.

24. I must appreciate that the learned judge of the Tribunal did not travel beyond the terms of the Trust Deed to decide the question of appointment of Mutawallis. I would also examine the findings of tribunal on the basis of various clauses incorporated in the trust deed. Clause (2) of the Deed appears to have been inserted only to make an interim arrangement on the death of either of the joint Mutawallis. This intention of the Settlor can be inferred from the words "for the time being" used in Clause (2). However, Clause (5) of the Deed appears to be the main provision for appointing Mutawallis, if the founder Mutawallis die sans nominating their successors.

29. While deciding the additional Issue No. (2), which was framed to examine whether there is any provision to appoint the joint Mutawallis, the learned Judge of the tribunal has held that there is no such scope within the provisions of the Deed of Trust. However, it appears to me that this view has been taken primarily on the basis of Clause (2) of the Wakf Deed. I have already noted earlier that Clause (2) was basically incorporated in the Deed to make a stop-gap arrangement. No such limitation was imposed in Clause (5) or at any other place in the Deed. Contrary to that, the Settlor himself had appointed Md. Shafi and Md. Kammoo Mia as Joint Mutawallis at the inception of the trust. From the citations of the trust deed, it also appears to me that the trust property also consisted of one part of the property owned by Md. Kammoo Mia. The respondent No. 2, Md. Sulaiman himself admitted in the cross-examination that trust property also includes the property of Md. Kammoo Mia. Similar admission is also found in the oral evidence of the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board.