9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Are the properties in suit governed by the United Provinces Muslims Waqfs Act (U.P. XIII of 1936)? 2. Is the suit filed by the appellants barred by limitation under Section 5(2) of the Act? 3. Is the suit maintainable without the statutory notice required by Section 53 of the Act? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Are the properties in suit governed by the United Provinces Muslims Waqfs Act (U.P. XIII of 1936)? The appellants, members of the Waqf Committee, Darga Sharif, Bharaich, claimed that the properties in question were not covered by the provisions of the United Provinces Muslims Waqfs Act. They sought a declaration that the properties were outside the operative provisions of the Act and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Sunni Central Board of Waqf, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (respondent 1). The trial court held that the properties in suit could not be considered waqf as defined by the Act, as the profits from the village Singha Parasi were not vested in the Almighty and were subject to the condition of resumption. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the properties constituted waqf as defined by the Act. The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of this issue, as it upheld the findings on limitation and notice, rendering the question moot. 2. Is the suit filed by the appellants barred by limitation under Section 5(2) of the Act? Section 5(2) of the Act prescribes a one-year limitation period for suits challenging the decisions of the Commissioner of Waqfs. The notification declaring the properties as waqf was issued on February 26, 1944, and the suit was filed on October 18, 1946. The appellants argued that Section 5(2) did not apply to their suit because they were not mutawallis or persons interested in the waqf, and they claimed the properties did not constitute a waqf under the Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the expression "any person interested in a waqf" must be construed to include persons interested in what is held to be a waqf. Thus, the suit was governed by Section 5(2) and was barred by time unless saved by Section 15 of the Limitation Act. The Court found that Section 15 did not apply, as there was no injunction or order staying the institution of the suit, and the order relied upon by the appellants did not create any difficulty against the institution of the present suit. Therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. 3. Is the suit maintainable without the statutory notice required by Section 53 of the Act? Section 53 of the Act requires a two-month notice before instituting a suit against a Central Board in respect of any act purporting to be done under the Act or for any relief in respect of any waqf. The appellants conceded that they had not given the requisite notice but argued that the notification did not refer to the Darga and offerings made by devotees. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the tomb of Syed Salar Mahsood Ghazi was expressly mentioned in the notification, and the offerings, by their nature, constituted the income of the Darga. Therefore, the suit properties had been duly notified, and the appellants were required to give notice under Section 53. The failure to comply with this requirement rendered the suit not maintainable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 5(2) and was not maintainable due to the lack of notice under Section 53 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
