9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Res judicata 2. Public or private nature of the mosque and its adjuncts 3. Public or private nature of the graveyard 4. Bar under Section 55(2) of the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954 5. Applicability of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure Detailed Analysis: 1. Res Judicata: The appellants argued that previous judgments between the parties operated as res judicata, preventing the current suit. The Court noted that for res judicata to apply, the litigating parties, the subject matter, and the issues must be identical and finally decided by a competent court. The Court found that the public character of the mosque and the graveyard was never directly in issue in previous litigations. The prior judgments dealt with specific rights related to the management and officiation of prayers, not the public nature of the properties. Therefore, the plea of res judicata was rejected. 2. Public or Private Nature of the Mosque and Its Adjuncts: The Court examined whether the mosque and its adjuncts were public wakfs. It was established that the mosque was built with the permission of the landowner for public worship, evidenced by the agreement (Ext. B-4). The Court emphasized that under Mahomedan Law, once a property is dedicated for public worship and prayers are offered, the dedication is complete and irrevocable. The adjuncts, including the platform, water tank, and other constructions, were also used for religious purposes connected with the mosque, thus forming part of the public wakf. The Court concluded that the mosque and its adjuncts were public wakfs. 3. Public or Private Nature of the Graveyard: The Court found overwhelming evidence that the graveyard was a public one by immemorial user. Previous judgments consistently held that the graveyard was used by the Mahomedan community to bury their dead, and the defendants' claim of it being a private graveyard was rejected. The Court noted that the defendants' right to charge burial fees did not affect the public nature of the graveyard. The Court affirmed that the entire burial ground was a public graveyard. 4. Bar Under Section 55(2) of the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954: The appellants contended that the suit was barred by Section 55(2) of the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954, which requires the consent of the Wakf Board for instituting a suit related to a wakf. The Court found that at the time the suit was brought, no Wakf Board had been constituted. Therefore, the provisions of Section 55(2) were not applicable, and the suit was maintainable. 5. Applicability of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The appellants argued that Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply as the defendants were not trustees. The Court held that the defendants were de facto managers of the properties and, therefore, trustees de son tort. Section 92 applies to cases involving breaches of public, charitable, or religious trusts, and the defendants' mismanagement and negligence justified invoking Section 92. The Court affirmed the applicability of Section 92 and the necessity of framing a scheme for the administration of the trust properties. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment that the mosque, its adjuncts, and the graveyard were public wakfs. The suit was not barred by res judicata or Section 55(2) of the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable, and a scheme for administering the trust properties was warranted due to the defendants' mismanagement. The Dargah, however, was held to be the private property of the defendants. The Court suggested that the lower court consider involving the defendants in the administration of the mosque while framing the scheme.
|
