LexSIRAJUL HAQ KHAN & OTHERS versus THE SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF, U.P. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SIRA~UL HAQ KHAN & OTHERS
1287
'!I,
• •
THE SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF W AQF,
U. P. & OTHERS
(V'ENXATARAMA ArYAR, GAJENDRAGADXAR itnd
A. K. SARKAR JJ.)
W a,qf-Suit against Central
Board- Noticc-Limitation-
United Provinces Muslims Wa,qf Act (U. P. XIII of r936), ss. 5,
53-The Indian Limitation Act (IX of r908), s. r5.
The respondent No. I, a Central Board constituted under the
United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936, by a notification
under s. 5(1) of the Act dated February 26, 1944• took into
management the properties of a Darga Sharif and on October 18,
1'446, the appellants, three of the five members of the Managing
Committee of the said Darga Sharif, brought the suit, out of
which the present appeal arises, for a declaration that the Darga
properties did not constitute a waqf within the meaning of the
Act and that the respondent No. l had no lawful authority to
issue the notification and assume management of the said pro-
perties, It was urged on behalf of respondent No. I that the
sait had not be.en brought within one year as prescribed by
s. 5(2) of the Act, and was as such barred by !imitation; and, that
since the notice prescribed bys. 53 of the Act had admittedly not
been served on the respondent, the suit was incompetent. It
"'as found that in an earlier suit, Jjrought with the sanction of
the Advocate General, against the Managing Committee for
their removal and the framing of a fresh schejlle, ji decree had
been passed against the appellants on October i6, 1941, and it
directed them not to interfere with the affairs of the Darga as
members of the said Committee and to comply with the direc-
tion removing them from office. On appeal the said decree was
set aside by the Chief Court on March 7, i946. It was contended
on behalf "f the appellants that s. 5(2) of the Act had no appli-
cation and even if it had, the suit was within time by virt11e of
the provisions of s. 15 of the Limitation Act.
Held, that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants
must be negatived.
The expression "any person interested in a waqf" used in
s. 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936, pro-
perly construed, means any person interested in a transaction
that i&,held to be waqf by the Commissioner of \Vaqfs appointed
under the Act and as such the appellants fell within that cate-
gory.
Where a literal construction defeats the.object.of the statute
and makes part of it meaningless, it is legitimate to adopt a
liberal coiostruction.that gives a meaning to the entire provision•
and makes it effective.
·
•
Septemb~r zlS.
•
•
•
1288
SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS
[1959]
1958
Chalurb/mf Moha11/al \', Bhicam Chand Choro~a & So11s, (r948)
. .
53 C.\V.N. 410, Jlatlm K11tty v. Varoe K11lt)'. A.l.R. 1950 Mad.
S11•J1<l Haq Kha 11 64 and Lal Chand v. Messr1. Bl1sanla Ma! Devi Dayal & Ors.,
6- Others
(HJ47) 49 P.L.R. 246, referred to.
Th s v •. C 1 1
Rules of limitation are arb;trary in nature and in construing
;
u~ui1 lveii ;(1 thcrn it is ~ot pcrmissihlc to import equitable considerations,
Uoo; ; 0,:q · and eff<!ct must he gi,·en to the strict grammatical meani'ng of
· ·
"' the words used.
Sectio11 15 of the Limitation Act can be
•
attracterl only \\·here a suit has h::!r.n stayed by au injunction or
.-:_
•
order a11<l the test would be whether its institution would or
would not be an act in contempt of the court's order.
;\'agendra Satlz Dey'" Suresh Chandra Dey, (1932) 34 Born.
L. R. rn65, Narayan }ivan[;ouda v. Pu.ttabai, (1944) 47 Born. L.R.
I, /icli Maharmii , .. The Collector of Etau,a/z, (1894) l.L.R. 17 All.
198 and Sundaramma v. Abdul J{!radcr, (1932) l.L.R. 56 }lad. 490,
relied on.
Musommat Basso Kaur v. Lala Dhua Si1'gh, (1888) 15 l..l.
211, held mapplicahle.
The order of tl:r court in the earlier suit was neither an
injunction nor a11 order of the 11at11rc eontemplatecl bys. 15 of
the I.imitation Act and so that section was inapplicable.
Offerings made fro1n tin1e to tin1c by the dc\·otccs Yisiting
the Dorga Sharif were by their very nature a~ income of the
i)arga. ancl failure to mention them in the notification under
s. 5(1) of the Act, did not render the notificotion defective.
'fhc pro\'ision as to 11 1)tice.u!1der s. 53 of the .Act \\·as applic-
able to suits in respect of acts of the Central Board as well as
suits for any relief in respect of the waqf.
C1v1r. APPEr.L'.\TE ,JURISDICTION:
Civil AppeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.