Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The learned Subordinate Judge after a careful examination of the evidence and the law bearing on the subject held that under Ext. 2 a wakf was created; that the sale deed (Ext. 4) was not supported by consideration and was fraudulently got executed by defendant No, 17 in favour of his grandson, the plaintiff and that in any case the alienation of wakf properties was illegal and passed no title to the plaintiff. The learned Judge also found that excepting making vigorous attempt to gain possession of the properties the plaintiff was never in peaceful possession thereof and that it has not been proved that he had ever raised vegetables on the lands or let out the rooms constructed thereon to any tenant. In the result, he passed a decree dismissing the suit.

9. It is a well-settled principle of Muhammadan Law that in the absence of any express provision in the wakf deed a Mutawalli is not entitled to make any alienation of the wakf properties even for legal necessities without the permission of the Court. Admittedly, no such permission has been taken in this case and the wakf deed, far from containing any provision authorising alienation, contains a specific clause to the effect that the properties should not be alienated. That being the position, alienation of the wakf properties under the sale deed Ex. 4 in favour of the plaintiff is invalid and the plaintiff has not acquired any title to the suit properties hereunder. This finding is sufficient to dismiss the suit.