9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Suit for declaration that the property is not a Wakf property. 2. Interpretation of sale deeds to determine if the property is a Wakf property. 3. High Court's interference in second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Issue 1: Suit for declaration that the property is not a Wakf property: The plaintiff, a registered Society, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the property is not a Wakf property and should be removed from the list of Wakf properties. The plaintiff contended that the property was purchased for the benefit of the Muslim community but not exclusively for them, hence not a Wakf property. The defendant, the Wakf Board, argued that the property was dedicated by Sultanji for the exclusive benefit of the Muslim community, making it a Wakf property. The trial court framed the main issue of whether the property is a Wakf property or not. The sale deeds presented by the plaintiff indicated Sultanji's dedication of the property for Muslim community benefit, leading to the conclusion that it was indeed a Wakf property. Both lower courts upheld this view, emphasizing the conformity of the Society's objectives with Sultanji's original dedication. The High Court's interference was deemed unwarranted as it failed to show any error in the lower courts' findings. Issue 2: Interpretation of sale deeds to determine if the property is a Wakf property: The sale deeds revealed Sultanji's dedication of the property for the Muslim community's benefit, indicating a clear intention to create a Wakf property. The recitals in the deeds demonstrated Sultanji's desire for the property to be used for building a school for Muslim girls or other communal purposes, aligning with Muslim law's recognition of pious, religious, or charitable purposes. The trial court and first appellate court correctly analyzed these facts, concluding that the property was indeed a Wakf property. The High Court's failure to identify any legal error in this interpretation led to the appeal's success and the restoration of the trial court's decision. Issue 3: High Court's interference in second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code: The High Court's interference in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code was found to be unjustified. The Supreme Court highlighted established legal principles restricting the High Court's role to deciding substantial questions of law and not routinely overturning factual findings without evidence of perversity or lack of basis. The High Court's reversal of the lower courts' concurrent findings without demonstrating any legal errors or factual misinterpretations was deemed unwarranted. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's casual substitution of subjective satisfaction for the lower courts' reasoned judgments, leading to the appeal's success and the restoration of the trial court's decision. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and restoring the trial court's decision. The detailed analysis of the sale deeds, the legal principles governing Wakf properties, and the limitations on the High Court's interference in second appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code formed the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in this case.
|
