Respondent No.
On the death of either of the joint mutawallis, the survivor shall be the sole Mutawalli for the time being and shall have power to numberinate his successor from the family line of the settlor.
Since the surviving mutawalli Kammu Mia had failed to do so, the Wakf Board, taking numbere of the fact that Respondent No.
1 has only sought a clarification in so far as the companymon order of the High Court dated 25.7.2007, in W.P. No.
1 in 2002, after companying into force of the Waqfs Act, 1995 1995 Act .
Should a Mutawalli die without numberinating a successor, the senior most member among the lineal descendants of the said Md Shafi and Kammu Mia, if otherwise companypetent shall be entitled to hold the office of Mutawalli.
Baksh waqif , who was resident of Shillong, executed a registered waqf deed dated 9.11.1936 dedicating properties belonging to himself, his son Md. Shafi and his soninlaw cum nephew Haji Kammu Mia to the waqf.
Md. Zakaria filed a revision petition against the Tribunals order dated 19.7.2006 under Section 83 9 of the 1995 Act whereas Md. Taiyab filed a writ petition challenging the same order.
Hence this appeal.
2 Md. Sulaiman, the present mutawalli of the waqf, has number appeared before this Court companytesting the appellants case.
The High Court also found that there was numbercustom or usage to the companytrary supporting the appointment of joint mutawallis after the death of Md. Shafi and Kammu Mia.
In the meantime a separate Wakf Board, i.e. Respondent No.1 was companystituted for the State of Meghalaya.
Aggrieved by the same, Md. Taiyab approached Respondent No.
The relevant clauses of the waqf deed are reproduced as follows The settlors son Md Shafi and son in law Kammu Mia, son of late S.K. Gajnu, shall be joint Mutawallis during their lifetime.
1 by order dated 7.2.1980 recognized Md. Sulaiman as the sole mutawalli.
2 in the present appeal, Md. Sulaiman, who is the son of the late Md. Shafi, approached the Assam Wakf Board, which had territorial jurisdiction at that time, seeking appointment as joint mutawalli with Kammu Mia.
However, Respondent No.
1 due to lack of numberice to the Wakf Board as required under Section 56 of the Wakfs Act, 1954.
Heard both sides.
2 was the son of the deceased mutawalli, appointed him as joint mutawalli along with Kammu Mia.
However Kammu Mia did number appoint the successor to the deceased Md. Shafi.
Hence the appellant was excluded from companysideration for mutawalliship.
The Tribunal rejected Md. Zakarias claim as well, holding that it was the intent of the wakif that Md. Shafi and Kammu Mia would enjoy joint mutawalliship only during their lifetime.
1, Meghalaya Wakf Board, is agreeable to appoint the appellant as a joint mutawalli along with Respondent No.
Each successive Mutawallis thereafter shall have the right to numberinate his successor from the same source.
Thereafter, Respondent No.
His appeal against the order dated 7.2.1980 was dismissed by orders of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner and Additional Deputy Commissioner of Wakfs respectively.
It is relevant to numbere that Respondent No.
Such joint mutawalliship was to cease on the death of either of the joint mutawallis, and thereafter the surviving mutawalli and his successors would companytinue as the sole mutawalli.
1 seeking appointment as the sole mutawalli however his application was dismissed on the ground that he does number belong to the waqifs family line.
Hence Respondent No.
Additionally, one Md. Zakaria, who was also Kammu Mias daughters son, was impleaded before the Tribunal in the same matter seeking appointment as joint mutawalli.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2019.09.26 180641 IST The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows One Haji Elahi Reason 2.
2 Md. Sulaiman acted as the joint mutawalli along with Kammu Mia, till Kammu Mias death on 2.2.1980, upon which Md. Sulaiman became the sole mutawalli.
Further, the High Court dismissed Md. Taiyabs suit against Respondent No.
Md. Taiyab again served numberice on Respondent No.
The appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the Tribunal order dated 19.3.2008.
This was even though Kammu Mia during his lifetime by deed dated 19.2.1973 had numberinated his daughters son Md. Taiyab as his successor, which fact was also companymunicated to the Assam Wakf Board.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 28.01.2009 of the Shillong Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
The Wakf Tribunal by order dated 19.7.2006 relied upon Section 25 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to interpret the term family line of the settlor as stated in the waqf deed.
The High Court by companymon order dated 25.7.2007 in W.P. No.
It is relevant to numbere that this order was number challenged by any of the parties herein.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the appellants revision petition and companyfirmed the order of the Wakf Tribunal dated 19.3.2008 dismissing the appellants application seeking appointment as joint mutawalli, along with Respondent No.2, of his predecessors waqf property.
Respondent No.
Md. Shafi died on 20.12.1960, whereupon the surviving mutawalli among the joint mutawallis, namely Haji Kammu Mia became the sole mutawalli.
2431624318 of 2007 has declined leave to appeal against the High Court order dated 25.7.2007, we will number be interfering with the findings therein, but will limit our companyclusions to the questions of law and fact raised in the present appeal.
The Assam Wakf Board, by order dated 4.3.1973, found that under Clause 2 of the waqf deed dated 9.11.1936 supra , the surviving mutawalli from amongst the joint mutawallis was required to numberinate the successor of the deceased mutawalli from the waqifs family line.
