LexABDUL KARIM KHAN AND ORS. versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTI:E, RAIPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
300 ABDUL KARIM KHAN AND ORS. v. MUNICIPAL COMMITTI:E, RAIPUR March 8, 1965 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] Madhya Prad.esh Public Trusts Act (30 of 1951}-Entry by Registrar that property be]ongs to Public trust-If conclusive against real owner. The first appellant, who was the Mufawalli of a putlic trust, filed a representative suit for an injunction restraining the respon- dent from committing acts of encroachment on the suit property, on the ground that the property was that of the trust and had been so registered by the Registrar of Public Trusts, under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and also on appeal. In their appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants contended that, since the respondent did not avail itself of the right to file a suit within the specified time, the order passed by the Registrar must be held to be final and conclusive against the respondent. HELD: The fact that the property in suit was added to the list of the properties belonging to the trust, could not affect the res- pondent's title. to it. [306 A-BJ · The enquiry which the Act contemplates is an enquiry into the question as to whether a trust is public or private and does not take within its sweep questions as to whether a property belongs to a private individual and is not the subject matter of any trust at all. The only persons who are required to file their objections in proceedings before the Registrar are persons interested in the public trust-not petsons who dispute the existence of the trust or who challenge the allegation that any property belongs to the said trust. Inasmuch as the respondent was not a party to the proceed- ings and could not have filed any otjections in the proceedings the· respondent was not bound to file an appeal under s. 4(5) of !ht Act or a suit under s. 8(1). challenging order of the Registrar. Therefore, the finality given to the finding of the Registrar could not be availed of by the appellant as against the respondent. [304 G; 305 A-B, D-E] CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 871 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 13, 1959, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 294 of 1959. S. P. Sinha and M. I. Khowa;a, for the appellant. S. T. Desai and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respopdent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C . .J; This appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellants who are the representatives of. residents. of Nayapara Ward in particular and of the Muslill1 community of Raipur in general, in which- they claimed an injunction restrain- ing the respondent, 1\iunicipal Committee of Raipur, from com- mitting acts of encroachmel\t on their rights and the rights of A B 0 D E F G H ; ABDUi. K.\RDI KHAN v. >!UXICIPAL COM~IITTEE RAIPUR (Gajendragadkar, c. J.) 301 A the Muslim community in holding U rs and other ceremonies on the plot in suit. It appears that at Raipur, there is a piece of land called "Fazle Karim's Bada" Khasra No. 649 measuring 4.62 acres. Inside this Bada, there are three or four Municipal Schools. The office of the Electric Power House is also located in one corner of the land. Behind the School, there is a Pakka platform B known as "Syed Baba's Mazar". Near the Electric Power House, there is a raised earth platform on ·which there is a flag. This flag is called "Madar Sahib's .Thanda". Surrounding this land, there is a brick wall which was made by the respondent several years past. According to the plaint, U rs function is held every year in front of Syed Baba's .Mazar for the last several years. C On or a.bout the 22nd October, 1956, the employees of the res- pondent started digging foundation at the places A. B, C and D shown on the map attacbed to the plaint. These digging opera- tions were commenced under the Qirections of the respondent, because the respondent intended to construct another school building on the plot. The appellants then served a notice on the D respondent to desist from carrying on the digging operations on the ground that the property on which the said operations were being carried out, was a part of the wakf property. When the respondent did not comply with the requisition oontained in the said notice. the present suit was filed by the appellants on October 29, 1956. This suit has been filed un
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.