Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These two appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the respondents for a declaration that the properties involved in them are not wakf properties. The subject-matter of the litigation are two bits of lands measuring 5 acres 28 cents and 2 acres 26 cents, punja, in Rajagiri Village of Thanjavur District. As required by the provisions of Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, one of the Assistant Commissioners appointed under the Act enquired into the nature of the several endowments attached to Muslim, institutions in Thanjavur and submitted a report to the State Government of Madras. The State Government, in its turn, forwarded this report to the Wakf" Board. The Wakf Board, after examining it, published a list of wakfs existing in the district of Thanjavur in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 24th December, 1958. This list included the subject-matter of these appeals.

So with the significance to be attached to the expression Thaikal, with the Government Revenue records referring to the property as Devadayam and with the law recognising the gift to a Takia as a wakf as understood in Muslim Law, the net result of the evidence as discussed above leads to the conclusion that the dedication in the present case is one which would amount to a wakf within the meaning; of the Muslim law.

9. Basing himself on these remarks Sri Ismail urges that the properties should be regarded as having been used as wakfs and therefore the suits should be dismissed on this ground. It is contended on the other side that these observations were made by the learned District Munsif in connection with the controversy relating to the nature of the wakfs and that they should not be regarded as a finding that the properties Were used as wakfs and if We are with him on the other points the matter has to be sent back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the whole issue. We would have accepted this suggestion if it had become necessary although primes facie it looks as if the properties were Wakfs by user:

(a) a mosque idgah, imambara, dargah, Shangah or a meqbara; .
(b) a Muslim graveyard;
(c) a choultry or a muzafarkhana, then such property shall be deemed to be comprised in that wakf and be dealt with in the same manner-as the wakf in which it is comprised.

The question that is debated is whether Thaikal could be considered to be a Muslim, graveyard. Sri Rajah Ayyar contends that since there was no consideration of the question by the trial Court as to the character of these Thaikals it would not be safe to treat them as Muslim graveyards and apply the provisions of Section 66-C of Act XXXIV of 1964, whereas Sri Ismail says that there can be little doubt that the Thaikals are Muslim graveyards or dargahs within the pale of Section 66-C Although there seems to be more force in the argument of Sri Ismail we are relieved of the necessity of either expressing any final opinion or sending back the case to the trial Court having regard to the view we have taken of the relevant provision of the Act necessitating the issue of notice before the institution of the suits under this Act.

21. Sri Raiah Ayyar then relied on the decision in S.C. Board of Wakf v. Sirajul Haq A.I.R. 1954 All. 68 According to him this decision is an authority for the proposition that if the word relief is not found in the section, any suit which claims a relief of a particular Tmre is no hit at by the section requiring the issue of a notice. What happened nature is no hit at by the section requiring the issue of a notice. What happened there was this. In pursuance of the enquiry required to be done under the Muslim Wakfs Act the Sunni Central Board notified the Official Gazette of 26th February 1944, the wakfs including the wakf which was the subject of dispute in the list of Sunni wakfs. Most of the property appertaining to the wakf was also notified in the relevent clause against this wakf. After this notification was made the Sunni Central Board asked the committee of management of the wakf to submit the annual budget to the Sunni Central Board for approval and also to get the accounts audited by the auditors of the Board. It also levied the usual contributions to be made by the wakfs under Section 54, Muslim Wakfs Act (XIII of 1936). The management being dissatisfied with these directions and also being of opinion that the contribution asked for by the Board could not come within the purview of the Act instituted the suit against the Sunni Central Board of Wakf. The Wakf Board invited the Court to dismiss the suit in limine on the ground that the statutory notice contemplated by Section 53 of the Act was not issued to the Board. This objection did not prevail with the trial Court which decreed the suit. But on appeal it was upheld by the High Court of Allahabad and the suit was dismissed. The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sirajul Haq v. S.C. Board of Wakf 1959 S.C.J. 367.