Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In the case of Lutifunnissa Bill v. Nazirun Bibi [1884] 11 Cal. 33 the plaintiff sued to recover possession as Mutwalli of certain lands alleging that they had been dedicated as wakf for certain charitable and: religious purposes. She based her right-to sue upon the fact that her deceased husband had been' Mutwaili and she prayed that the property in suit might bo declared wakf and that certain alienations made by her stepson since her husband's death might be set aside. It was held in that case that even assuming that the endowment alleged was neither a public charity within the meaning of Section 539 of the Civil P.C. nor a religious endowment to which Act 20 of 1863 applied, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue alone as it was clear upon the face of the plaint that others were interested in the subject-matter of the suit and therefore she could only sue on behalf of all who were so interested having first obtained the leave of the Court and having otherwise complied with the provisions of Section 30 of the Code. A dissentient note was struck in the case of Mohiuddin v. Sayiduddin [1893] 20 Cal. 810 in which case the plaintiff charged a Mutwalli and Sajjudanashin with various breaches of trust and for the removal of the Mutwalli and the manager appointed by the Mutwalli, and for the appointment of one of the plaintiffs as Mutwalli and for the framing of a scheme. It was a suit instituted with the consent of the Advocate-General. In that case the learned Judge3 observed thus:

13. In Dasondhay v. Muhammad Abu Nasar [1911] 33 All. 660, which was followed in this Court in the case of Ashraf Ali v. Mohammad Nurojjoma [1918] 23 C.W.N. 115, to which I have already referred, two Mahamedans in whose hands lay the superintendence of certain wakf properties had sued for a declaration that a plot of land appertained to the wakf and for recovery of possession thereof on setting aside its alienation by those who were in charge thereof. It was held in the case that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit for a declaration that the alienation was void as the land was wakf, but not for a declaration for recovery of possession. In a later decision of the same Court in the case of Ram Chandra v. All Muhammad [1913] 35 All. 197 the principle was re-affirmed that every Mahomedan who has a right to use a mosque for purposes of devotion is entitled to exercise such right without interference and is competent to maintain a suit against anyone who interferes with its exercise, but if he brings a suit in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the whole Mahomedan community that decision will be binding only as between the plaintiff and the defendant and cannot be taken advantage of by, and be binding on, the Mahomedan community in general. This was a case in which the mosque where worship was performed was attempted to be taken possession of by some Hindus in execution of a decree on a mortgage. In the case of Muhammad Fahimul Huq v. Jagat Ballav Ghosh A.I.R. 1923 Patna 475, it was held that every Mussalman who derives any benefit from a wakf is entitled to maintain an action against the Mutwalli to establish his right thereto or against a trespasser to recover any portion of the wakf property which has been misappropriated without joining any other person who may participate in the benefit, and that the plaintiff who in that case was a member of the family of a charitable wakf, being a beneficiary under the wakf, could sue for recovery of possession of property wrongfully alienated and for the incidental: declaration that the property being wakf property could not be alienated and that where consequential relief was available to him he was not entitled to a mere declaration.