LexTAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD versus LARABSHA DARGA PANRUTI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD
v.
LARABSHA DARGA P A.~RUTI
NOVEMBER 23, 2007
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.)
Wakf--Nature of-Whether private or public-Money spent on
feeding fakirs and lighting tomb of the D~rgah and to do fateah-
C Portion of income spent/or family ofMuthavllis-Also the succession
is hereditary-In the circumstances, held it is a private wakf.
In 1978, SB filed suit for declaration that suit property is not wakf
property but is their private property. The trial Court dismissed the suit
holding that the suit property was wakf property belonging to the
D Dargah. First appellate Court upheld the same. During pendency of
second appeal being S. No.1104 of1983, SB died. A petition was filed
for appointment of hereditary Muthavllis to Dargah and its properties
and the WakfBoard after holding enquiry appointed the respondents
as joint Muthavllis recognizing their right to be hereditary trustees. High
E Court dismissed the second appeal holding that the suit property is Wakf
property and not a private trust property. SLP before this Court was
also dismissed.
Respondent filed suit for declaration that the suit Dargah and its
property is private wakf and not public wakf. Trial Court decreed the
F suit. On appeal, first appellate Court held that suit Darga and its
properties do not belong to private wakf. On appeal, High Court
restored the judgment of trial Court. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. The High Court heavily relied on Ex.A-22 which is a
proforma maintained by the Wakf Board. It mentions thatthe object of
the Wakfis for the support offeedingthe fakirs and lighting the tomb
ofLarabsha and to do fateah. It further shows that these services are
to be rendered without alienating the properties. It further shows that
H
518
TAMIL NADU W AKF BOARD v. LARABSHA
519
~
DARGAPANRUTI
out of the income derived from the suit property, a portion of the same A
is meant for pious, religious and charitable purposes and remaining was
used forthe maintenance of the family. Column-17 of the remarks states
that originally R.S. No. 24, 205 acres dry belong to 'N'. His sixth
successor conveyed this land containing houses and shops to one of his
disciples by means of settlement ('Hibba') in 1939. This disciple in his B
turn made a settlement in favour of the paternal grand father of the
Husband of SB and SB is now enjoying the lands. No accounts are
maintained. Only Fateah is done on every Thursday evening and the
tomb is lighted daily. At present SB is the Muthavalli. A few rupees are
spent for the Dargah and the balance is utilized for the maintenance of c
the family. The above details furnished in the proforma clearly reveal
that succession to the office ofMuthavallis is by hereditary and the
income has got to be spent for pious, religious and charitable purposes
and a portion was also used for management of the family.
[Para 6) [524-D, E, F, G; 525-A, BJ D
2. Inasmuch as a portion of the income is to be spent for the family
apart from pious, religious and charitable purposes, it satisfies the
character of a private Wakf i.e. Wakf-alal-aulad. The said document
i.e. Ex.A-22 also supports the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the
hereditary Muthavallis of the private Wakf. These aspects have been E
fully considered and rightly concluded by the trial Judge as well as the
High Court. In the earlier suit, the plaintiffs claimed the suit property
as their private property and not as private Wakfproperty and only in
the said circumstance the High Court in Second Appeal No.1104 of1983
rendered the finding that the suit property is a Wakf property and it is F
not a private trust property. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court
that the decision in S.A.1104 of1983 has no bearing to the issue in the
latter proceeding is correct. The High Court has also rightly concluded
from Ex.Al thatthere is no indication thatthe Wakfis a public Wakf
and Hibba only indicates that certain things have got to be carried out G
-·~·
in respect of pious, religious and charitable purpose and proforma
Ex.A22 supports the claim of the plaintiffs.
[Para 6 and 7] (525-B, C, D, E, F, G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1559 of
2007.
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 12 S.C.R.
A
From the final Judgment dated 25.6.2004 and Decree dated
28.6.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 641
of 1996.
J.M. KExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.