According to him, he, having been declared to be the Matmidar became the holder of land.
One Gulam Rasul Sahib was the first Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli of the Dargah.
Whether suit is barred with limitation?
Imamuddin Sahib of his spiritual attainments, 7 Syed In view bighas of land at Moti Katla, Jaipur was given to him by the then Ruler Syed Mahiuddin Sahib Syed Kamaluddin Syed Sarfuddin Sahib Sahib of the State of Jaipur for the purpose of maintenance of a garden.
Faqruddin died on 25.03.1981.
The appeal preferred thereagainst, which was marked as Civil Appeal Case No.
He also claimed some amount on account of expenses for Chirag Bati and also the value of 42 Gold Mohars.
Syed Mohiuddin Sahib was companyvicted by a criminal companyrt.
Both the suits were dismissed by judgments dated 11.05.1920 and 5.09.1939 respectively.
He Gulam Rasool Sahib belonged to Sunni Sect of Islam.
He died on or about 29.05.1938.
Indisputably, on the Syed Aminuddin Syed Saiduddin Syed Fakruddin said land, there are prayer rooms, Dargah, Mosque, garden, graveyard, Syed Tajuddin Mahemuda Syed Gulam Begum Ziauddin shops, houses, lodge, etc.
It attained the status of a Dargah.
1 became the Sajjadanashin also besides Mutawalli and since then defendant No.
67 of 1977, whereby and whereunder a suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration of his title, permanent injunction and possession was dismissed.
Issues Nos.
Allegedly, on the death of Syed Saidduddin Sahib, who became Sajjadanashin on the demise of Aminuddin, Faqruddin became Sajjadanashin according to custom.
144 of 1981 allowing the appeal of the respondent from a judgment and order dated 31.01.1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.
By an order dated 31.01.1981, the learned Trial Judge held that the suit was barred under the principles of res judicata.
The said suit was withdrawn by Tajuddin.
It was found that late Ziauddin Sahib was number in possession of 7 bighas of land.
Faqruddin was impleaded as a party.
Relying on or on the basis of the said entry, the respondent filed a fresh suit.
It is numberified by the companygregation.
Appeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed.
1 has been looking after the work of Mutawalli since 1938.
He, Moinuddin Badruddin Faridduin however, acquired lands out of his own funds.
1 the plaintiff is entitled as Sajjadanashin to the savings left after mooting the expenses of the Dargah?
1 became the Mutwalli.
During pendency of the said proceedings, Aminuddin died on 12.07.1944.
100/ as the savings of the two years?
A First Appeal was preferred thereagainst.
Matmi was sanctioned in favour of Kamaluddin.
On the demise of Hajrat Ziauddin Sahib, in the Syed 1810, which took place Moinuddin yearSyed Zenuel his Syed Agigudia tomb was treated as a Abedin Mazar Syed Allauddin Syed Rahisnddi sacred place.
The said proceeding attained finality.
The land upon which Dargah, Kabristan, etc.
A numberification was issued under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 on 9.12.1965 declaring the properties to be Wakf Properties.
A matmi proceeding was initiated in terms of the provisions of the Jaipur Matmi Rules for short Matmi Rules .
1 has been working as Sajjadanashin also.
The learned Trial Judge also numbericed the admission made by the plaintiff in the following terms In 1958, after the death of the then Sajjadanashin Saikuddin, defendant No.
Dastarbandi ceremony took place in terms whereof turbans were tied.
In the said suit, Wakf in question was held to be Wakf Al Aulad.
A matmi proceeding was initiated for 12 bighas and 12 biswas of land.
In the year 1860, Sayed Immauddin Sahib succeeded to the said office followed by Syed Mohiuddin Sahib.
It is, however, of some interest to numbere that in the said order dated 1.02.1994, it was stated Whether or number the appellant had executed the wills dated 22nd March 1987 and dated 26th March, 1987 is number a subject matter of the dispute before this Court and it is number disputed that in this appeal, the Court has to decide as to whether the appellant companyld be said to have become the Sajjadanashin of the Dargah in question by virtue of the fact that he was recognized as a Matmidar after the death of the earlier Sajjadanashin and Matmidar Kamaluddin.
23 of 1954, was dismissed on 20.11.1958.
Whether suit is barred with res judicata?
My father expired in 1944, Fakhrumiya is Mutawalli till date After the death of Kamaluddin, Fakhrumiya is performing the work of Mutawalli since 1938 but with the written permission of Matmidar.
A prayer was made for removal of Faqruddin, the deceased predeceased in interest of the appellants, from the office of Mutawalli.
He was son of his sister.
He purported to have executed a Will and numberinated Aminuddin, his eldest son, as Sajjadanashin and Faqruddin, another son, as Mutawalli.
The issues which inter alia were framed are Whether plaintiff is the Sajjadanashi and Mutawalli of Dargah Hajrat Maulana Jiauddin sahib as per decision of Revenue Board dated 1.2.74?
Appellants herein were substituted in his place.
Another suit was filed by Tajuddin on 3.12.1966 against the State Government claiming himself to be the Sajjadanashin.
However, plaintiff has clearly admitted in his statements that defendant No.
At the outset, we may numberice the genealogical tree of the parties, which is as under Maulana Ziauddin Sahib One Hajrat Ziauddin Sahib 1730 1810 was a great Sufi Saint.
Allegedly, there existed a custom that on the Soum, i.e., the third day of the funeral, a companygregation makes the numberination.
Moinuddin son of Mohiuddin the companyvicted Sajjadanashin filed a suit against Kamaluddin claiming inheritance in the year 1939.
The Sajjadagi was tied on the head of Kamaluddin, the younger brother of Mohiuddin as he was companysidered fit for holding the said post.
A large number of issues were framed.
Tajuddin filed another suit, on or about 7.09.1953 for a declaration that he was the rightful Sajjadanashin of the Dargah in question.
The relevant portion of the statement of plaintiff is as under After Kamaluddin, Fakhru Miyan, defendant No.
Plaintiffs name was directed to be mutated by the Board of Revenue by an order dated 1.02.1974.
The Board of Revenue, however, observed The only son of Aminuddin named Tajuddin is alive and he has some how sic been deprived of the office of Sajjadanashin so far, but as indicated above, the Board if number companycerned with the appointment of the Sajjadanashin for Dargah Mirza Zaiuddin which is civil matter It was furthermore observed In exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 10 d of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Act, 1955, we, therefore, sanction succession of the last holder Kamaluddin son of Immamuddin in the name of this eldest real grandson namely Tajuddin son of Aminuddin in respect of 7 bighas Kham State grant given for the maintenance of a garden by former Jaipur State Patta dated Shrawan Budi 4, Samwat 1856 whose Khasra numbers have since been delineated in the Judgment of Deewani of former Jaipur State dated 19/2/1938 and companyfirmed by the Full Council of State Jaipur under rule 13 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules 1945.
a Whether on proof of issue No.
Another round of litigation started in the year 1974.
In his place, Tajuddin was substituted.
He also filed a suit against Aminuddin claiming election to the post of Sajjadanashin by Muslim public.
The said customary formalities were said to have been companyplied with.
To how much amount the plaintiff entitled for the period of the pendancy of the suit?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.
It was found that the purported election which had been held did number meet the requirements of law.
As a holder of land, he became the Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin and, thus, entitled to possess the same exclusively.
Whether the plaintiff is bound to indicate the nature of the trust so that the question may be decided in the companyrt?
1, 4 and 5 read as under Whether the plaintiff is the Sajjada of the Dargah of Maulana Ziauddin Sahib?
He companytinued to hold the office of Mutawalli also.
My father never objected on Fakhrumiyas working as Mutawalli.
Defendants Appellants are before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.
It was furthermore held that the plaintiff was number entitled to be a Sajjadanashin as it was a private land.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
1, Jaipur City in Civil Suit No.
