9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the court in deciding Wakf matters under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 2. Transferability of the right of Mutawalli. 3. Legal entitlement of the plaintiff to file the suit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court in Deciding Wakf Matters: The High Court addressed whether it was competent to decide the question of Wakf in view of Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The High Court found against the plaintiff, stating that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The Supreme Court noted that the substantial questions of law were formulated during the judgment writing process, and the parties were not made aware of these questions as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. This procedural lapse was a serious infirmity, as it denied the defendant No. 2 the opportunity to present his case. 2. Transferability of the Right of Mutawalli: The High Court ruled that the transfer of mutawalliship in favor of the plaintiff was not valid. The agreement dated 13.2.1973 (Exbt. A-2) did not confer legal title on the plaintiff, as it was signed by only five members of the tarwad out of about 100 members. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the plaintiff could only succeed based on the strength of its case and not on the weakness of the defendant's case. Since the mutawalliship could not be validly transferred under Exbt. A-2, the suit filed by the plaintiff should have been dismissed. 3. Legal Entitlement of the Plaintiff to File the Suit: The High Court accepted the alternative argument that even if Exbt. A-2 was invalid, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession as it was acting as a mutawalli in fact. The High Court relied on the definition of mutawalli under the Wakf Act, 1954, which includes a person who acts as mutawalli, and the written statement filed by the Wakf Board, which acknowledged the plaintiff-committee's regular submission of annual statements and contributions. However, the Supreme Court found this approach incorrect, as there were no specific pleadings or sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of acting as a mutawalli. The first appellate court had rightly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish its title to the property and was not entitled to recover possession. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The direction given by the High Court to the Wakf Board to exercise its power under Section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1995, was maintained. The Supreme Court emphasized that any party wishing to challenge the status of the property as Wakf property could seek appropriate legal remedies. No costs were awarded.
|
