2008 (5) TMI 751 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the plaintiff's claim to the title of Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli.
2. Applicability of res judicata.
3. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue.
4. Effect of the Matmi Rules and State grants.
5. Legal implications of wills and succession under Mohammedan law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the plaintiff's claim to the title of Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli:
The plaintiff claimed to be the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli based on a decision by the Revenue Board dated 1.2.1974, which sanctioned his succession as the Matmidar. However, the trial court found that the suit was barred under res judicata principles, noting the plaintiff's admission that the defendant had been acting as Mutawalli since 1938 and Sajjadanashin since 1958. The trial court concluded that the defendant had successfully proven his role as Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin. The High Court, however, opined that the statutory order by the Revenue Board provided a fresh cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit.

2. Applicability of res judicata:
The High Court acknowledged that a previous suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration as Sajjadanashin was dismissed in 1953, and the appeal was also dismissed in 1958. Despite this, the High Court held that the Revenue Board's decision in 1974 provided a new cause of action, thus not barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the entry in the revenue records did not provide a fresh cause of action to bypass the res judicata principle.

3. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Board of Revenue's jurisdiction is limited to revenue matters and cannot confer title or decide on the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin or the managerial role of Mutawalli. The Court held that the Board's decision was not sufficient to establish the plaintiff's claim to these offices, which must be determined by a competent civil court.

4. Effect of the Matmi Rules and State grants:
The Matmi Rules, validated by the Jaipur Matmi Rules (Validation) Act, 1961, apply to State grants and provide for the mutation of the name of the successor. However, the Supreme Court noted that these rules do not apply to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin or the managerial role of Mutawalli, which are not hereditary and require specific qualifications. The Court also highlighted that the rule of primogeniture under the Matmi Rules does not apply to Mohammedan law of inheritance.

5. Legal implications of wills and succession under Mohammedan law:
The plaintiff's claim was partly based on a will, but the Supreme Court pointed out that the validity of such wills must be determined by an appropriate court. The Court also noted that the office of Sajjadanashin involves personal qualifications and cannot be inherited solely based on a will. The Court emphasized that the right to recover possession of Wakf property lies with the Mutawalli, and the plaintiff's claim based on the will was not sufficient to establish his right to the office of Sajjadanashin or Mutawalli.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff's suit was barred by res judicata and that the Board of Revenue's decision could not confer the title of Sajjadanashin or Mutawalli. The Court reiterated that these offices require specific qualifications and cannot be inherited solely based on revenue entries or wills. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.