1933 (2) TMI 17 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "co-sharer" under the Agra Tenancy Act in the context of a suit for profits by a mutwalli of a wakf property.

Analysis:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to recover profits from a wakf property, claiming one-third share as a mutwalli. The defendant argued that mutwallis are not considered co-sharers under the Agra Tenancy Act, thus cannot sue for profits. The lower courts agreed, citing that a mutwalli lacks proprietary interest. However, a previous case established that managers of endowed properties can sue as co-sharers, regardless of religious affiliation. The court agreed that anyone recorded as a co-sharer in the khewat can maintain a suit for profits, as per a full Bench ruling. The term "co-sharer" was not narrowly defined in the Act, leading the court to interpret it as someone jointly liable for land revenue, irrespective of proprietary rights.

The respondent argued that a mutwalli, managing wakf property, does not hold proprietary interest and thus cannot be a co-sharer. Citing legal precedents, it was contended that a mutwalli merely manages the property without owning it. However, the court disagreed, stating that a mutwalli in a private wakf essentially acts as an owner, with limitations on transfer. The estate in private wakfs vests in beneficiaries, not God, and the mutwalli's position is akin to ownership, except for transfer restrictions. The court rejected the notion that a mutwalli cannot be considered a co-sharer under the Agra Tenancy Act.

The court held that anyone recorded as a co-sharer in the khewat should be deemed a co-sharer under the Agra Tenancy Act, without the need to establish proprietary rights. Relying on previous judgments, the court concluded that a mutwalli of a wakf property can maintain a suit for profits as a co-sharer. The appeal was allowed, reversing the lower court's decrees, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiff was granted a decree for the profits due, with costs to be borne by the respondent.