Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Amathul Jaffer Fathima was the last Muthavalli of the wakf, as due to her ailing health, she executed a registered power of attorney dated 3.2.1982 in favour of her son, Nazrudeen. A.J.Fathima, at the fag end of her life, was residing with her second son Fareed. On the basis of the power of attorney, Nazrudeen sold the property to six different persons under six different sale deeds and registered the same in favour of defendants in O.S. No.128/2005 on various dates between 11.12.1995 and 1.5.1996. A.J.Fathima, the last Muthavalli of Mohd. Meeran Wakf breathed her last on 15.12.1996. The alienation of the properties belonging to the wakf by Nazrudeen was brought to the notice of the Wakf Board by the Sub Registrar, Melapalayam, vide his letter dated 15.12.1996.

8. Since neither the Muthavalli nor any of her descendants had any right to alienate the properties belonging to Mohd. Meeran Wakf, the Wakf Board, while took action against Nazrudeen for alienating the property, though as per the Wakf Deed, Nazrudeen has to succeed as the Muthavalli of Mohd. Meeran Trust, and removed him from the post of Muthavalli on the basis of the Resolution No. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm ) 61/97. The appeal against the said resolution by Nazrudeen in C.M.A. No. 46/1998 was dismissed. Thereafter, the persons who had purchased the property under various registered sale deeds from Nazrudeen had, by way of gift deed dated 19.3.2000, gifted the property to the Trust. As the 7th defendant in O.S. No. 128/2005 claimed that the suit schedule property was purchased by him and started interfering with the peaceful possession of the Trust, the Trust filed O.S. No. 159/2004 praying for a permanent injunction against the 7th defendant. As the 6th defendant in O.S. No.128/2005 had alienated the property in favour of the 8th defendant on 14.1.2004, the 8th defendant was brought in as a party defendant in the aforesaid suit.

39. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that no property belonging to a wakf could be alienated without the prior sanction of the Board and in case such alienation is made procedure for recovery of the said property so transferred in contravention of the aforesaid provision is provided for u/s 52. It is further submitted that if the Board is satisfied upon enquiry that such wakf properties have been alienated, sub-section (1) of Section 52 clothes the Board with power to make a requisition to the Collector to obtain and deliver possession of the property. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though an appeal is provided before the Tribunal u/s 52 (4) against an order passed by the Collector u/s 52 (2), however, such a contingency does not arise as inspite of the request made by the Board to the Collector, which even according to the Trust is pending and, therefore, this Court could at best remand the matter to the Collector to pass such an order so that it could be appealed before the Tribunal, the same leads only to the present scenario, as instead of the Wakf Board, which has filed the suit, the appeal would be filed before the Tribunal by the Trust, which would only be the very same exercise and, therefore, remanding of the matter does not arise, as at best, it would not only lead to multiplicity of proceedings, thereby dragging the matter and defeating the intention with which the wakf was created.

85. Insofar as the contention relating to possession of the properties being with the Trust and that the patta and electricity connection standing in the name of the Trust are concerned, it is to be pointed out that it is settled law that patta does not confer title to the property and it is a document meely evidencing possession at best. In the present case, the title to the property with Mohd. Meeran is not disputed and, thereafter, after creation of the wakf, more than 70 years had passed during which the properties were held as wakf properties. There was no breakage in title and only on the power of attorney being executed by A.J.Fathima, the Muthavalli of the wakf to her son Nazrudeen, the alienation had taken place. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm ) Therefore, the title to the property not being with the Muthavalli, but only administering rights were granted to the Muthavalli, the power of attorney, even if steps into the shoes of the Muthavalli, cannot alienate the property and the said alienation is grossly illegal and against the provisions of the Wakf Act. In such a backdrop, without title, possession being only illegal in nature, the suit has been laid to recover and restore possession and, therefore, the said documents will not grant any right to the Trust to hold the properties, which are alleged to have been purchased from Nazrudeen.