LexNAWAB ZAIN YAR JUNG AND OTHERS versus THE DIRECTOR OF ENDOWMENTS AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COUR1 1 REPORTS 469 before the execution of the document. (6) The 1961 defendant had not examined either Babu Ramnath Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Singh or other important witnesses who could have v. J angbohadur Rai proved the fact that the plaintiff and her mother- in-law had the knowledge of the nature of the Subba Rao'· dooument. (7) The defendant managed to get this docum~nt by fraud to facilitate mutation of the property in his name. ·And ( 8) the plaintiff gave acceptable evidenca in support of her cas'3. The finding of the both the courts is supported by evidence, and there is no permissible ground for interference with it in second appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the learned Judge of the High Court had erroneously interferred with the concurrent findings of fact ' arrived at by the first•two courts. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the High Court and decree the suit with costs throughout; Appeal allowed. NAWAB ZAIN YAR JUNG AND OTHERS 11ss v. .4pril 9. THE DIRECTOR OF ENDOWMENTS AND ANOTHER (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA A!YAR, JJ.) Trust Properly-Wale/ and Public Oharitable Tt"UB~ Distinction-Rule of interpretation of documents -The W akJ Act, 1954 (29 of 1964), ss. 3(l), 9, 28-Hyderabad Etulowment Regulation, 1348-F (1939). The appellants were appointed trustees by the Nizam of Hyderabad by a trust deed executed on June 14, 1954. On March 2, 1959, respondent No. l, who was the Director of Endowments and Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, served a notice on the appell~11ts calling- upon them to re~ister the s~i4 1962 N,w.b Zain Yar Jung v. Thi Di11dor of Endowments 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] trust under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulation, 1348-F (19$9) and to render accounts of the same. The appellants contended that the trust was not governed by the said Regulation. Thereupon the first respondent sealed the pay office of the said trust. Although the seal was subsequently removed by an order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the appellants were asked to produce their books of account and not to operate upon the banks in which the money of the trust was deposited, and also not to spend any amount till further orders. Appellants I to 3 filed a writ petition in the High Court and prayed for a writ of prohibition and certiorari. The fourth appellant was subsequently appointed an additional trustee and added as a petitioner. The writ petition wa• dismissed by the High Court which held that s. 6 of Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, did not apply, and the Hyderabad Endowment Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder could not be said to have been repealed. It also held that the Regulation and the Rules did not contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14,19 anC! 31 of the Constitution of India. The appellants came to this Court by special leave. While the appeal was pending in this Court, the Muslim Wakf Board, H)derabad, constituted under s. 9 of the Wakf Act, 1954, wrote to the Secretary of the trust that the trmt was a Wakf within the meaning of the Wakf Act, and steps should be taken for its registration under s. 28 of the Act. When the order was not complied with in spite of reminders, the Board itself caused the registration of the trust to be made. When the registration was published, respondent No. 2 moved the High Court for quashing the registration of the trust on the ground that the trust was not a Wakf and the provisions of the Wakf Act did not apply to it. Under these circumstances, the Wakf Board was also made a party in this Court. But the parties agreed that if the trust was held to be a wakf within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act and its registration under s. 28 was found to be valid, the impugned Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder would be inap- plicable to the trust and the appeal would have to be allowed; on the other hand, if it was held that the trust was not a Wakf and the provisions of the Wakf Act were not applicable to it, its registration under s. 28 would be invalid. Heltl that the trust created is not a Wakf but a secular public ch~ritab~e tr~st. The Wakf_A~t, 1?54, d~s not a~ply to it and its regtstrat1on under s. 28 is invalid and 1noperat1ve. The' whole scheme of the trust deed vests the title in the trustees and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.