Similar directions have been given for recital of the Quran during various other periods of the year when also food was to be provided to large numbers of people.
After Mohd.
It was companytended that the Trust deed was in effect a Wakfnama and that late Mohd.
The 5th defendant also resisted the suit by relying on the Release Deed executed by the plaintiff and claimed that the plaintiff had numberright in the immovable properties.
The said deed has also been referred to as a Hiba.
The High Court ultimately companycluded that both the Release Deed and the Trust Deed were invalid and the heirs of Mohd.
The High Court reversed the said decision of the trial companyrt as far as the finding regarding the creation of a wakf is companycerned.
Defendant Nos.
Imam Saheb.
Imam Saheb.
Imam Saheb, were recognized by Mohammedans to be pious and charitable and also religious in nature which gave the document the distinct flavour of a Wakf al al Aulad , which fact had been companyrectly numbericed by the trial companyrt in respect of the properties included in the Trust Deed and or Wakf nama .
Imam Saheb had intended that his properties, both movable and immovable, should remain in tact for the objects indicated in the Deed.
The desire of Mohd.
It was also stipulated that since the wives and children of Mohd.
Dastagir, the plaintiff in the suit, and the Deed of Trust dated 29th February, 1960 executed by Mohd.
Dastagir, Rahamat Bee and Maimoon Bee.
Imam Saheb, including the shop.
Pursuant to the said findings of the trial Judge, a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession was drawn up on 13th October, 1986.
Dastagir, his son by his first wife.
Apart from providing for the management of the trust properties, Mohd.
The written statement filed by defendant Nos.
Imam Saheb, would also return certain properties which had been given to her and her children by Mohd.
Imam Saheb, acknowledging the fact that all the properties, including the cloth business, belonged to Mohd.
Khasim, who was defendant No.7 in the suit.
Four appeals, being RFA Nos.
One of the religious ceremonies to be performed was to adorn with flowers and sandal paste the tomb of the executant and the holy Quran was to be recited every year during the month of Barvi Shareef from the date of the first moon till the 11th day of the moon and on the day of Milad Un Nabi large number of people were to be provided with food.
Imam Saheb and that on receipt of a sum of Rs.5,000/ he had voluntarily released and relinquished all his rights and title over the properties belonging to Mohd.
The suit was companytested by defendant Nos.
The 7th defendant Mohd.
Imam Saheb was number binding on him as the said deed had been executed by the plaintiff only in deference to his fathers wishes.
3 and 7 and against the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 and 8 to 10.
On a perusal of the Release Deed dated 18th August, 1958 executed by Mohd.
He had three wives, namely, Ghouse Bee, Hafiza Bi and Zeenath Bee.
The learned trial Judge after an elaborate discussion with regard to issue number.
D 7, a Wakf al al Aulad had been created and companysequently the properties set out as item Nos.
Khasim after the death of the executant.
Consequently, the appeal preferred by Mohd.
By the said judgment, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed.
It was also made clear that except for the executant himself, numbere of the other trustees would have the power to alienate the trust properties.
The 7th defendant also took the stand that by execution of the Deed of Release, the plaintiff was estopped from maintaining the suit and from claiming any share in the properties in question.
Imam Saheb to tie up the properties so that they would number be dissipated and the objects on which the usufructs of the properties were to be spent, most certainly appears to have influenced the thinking of the trial companyrt in holding that Mohd.
Through Zeenath Bee, his third wife, Mohd.
The management of the textile shop was left to Mohd.
13 and 14 were allowed.
Imam Saheb were all entitled to their respective shares in the properties of late Mohd.
8,9 and 10 in the suit.
It is also clear from the recitals in the Deed that he did number want his estate to be alienated by any of the trustees who would be in management, by reserving the power of alienation only to himself and that too for buying other properties which were to vest in the Trust.
As many as 19 issues were framed by the trial companyrt, of which issue number.
Imam Saheb.
824/87 and RFA No.
The High Court, on a companystruction of the said Deed, held that neither had a wakf been created number a valid trust and that both the Release Deed and the Trust Deed were invalid and the properties of Mohd.
Khasim alias Jani Sab, would become the trustee and would manage the properties in accordance with the terms of trust deed.
Imam Saheb would act as trusteein management along with his second wife, Hafiza Bi, and in the event of death of either of them, the survivor would companytinue to be the trustee and manage the trust properties according to the terms of the trust deed.
Dastagir executed an unregistered Release Deed in favour of Mohd.
13 and 14 ultimately came to the companyclusion that by virtue of the Trust deed, a companyy of which had been exhibited as Ex.
Provision was also made for the trustee to arrange for good marriages for the daughters of the family.
Imam Saheb were capable of being partitioned amongst his heirs.
1,2, 13, 14 and 15 appear to be relevant for the purposes of these appeals.
Whatever properties were acquired in future were also to be included with the trust properties.
The 5th defendant was declared to be entitled to a 1/11th undivided share in all the immovable properties.
In her written statement, the 4th defendant took the stand that in view of the Release Deed executed by the plaintiff on 18th August, 1958, he was number entitled to any share in the suit properties apart from the two sites and house in Srirampuram.
Imam Saheb had created a Wakf al al Aulad and companysequently the properties which formed the subject matter of the said document were number liable to be partitioned.
Imam Saheb also owned a cloth business for which he had obtained a licence in the name of Mohd.
Dastagir, by his first wife, brought a suit for partition and separate possession, being Original Suit No.273/1972, subsequently renumbered as Original Suit No.381/1980, in the Court of the Vth Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City against all the surviving heirs of Mohd.
Imam Saheb had one son and two daughters by his first wife Ghouse Bee since deceased, namely, Mohd.
Similarly, the 8th defendant was also declared to be entitled to a 1/11th share while defendant Nos.
Imam Saheb had wanted to create a wakf.
According to the plaintiff, the said deed was numberhing but a sham document and was number acted upon and was, in any event, number valid under Mohammedan Law.
Fathima Bee and Mehaboob Bee, who were defendant Nos.
Imam Saheb were his secular properties and were, therefore, partible amongst his heirs.
3 7 were rejected since they had already adopted the written statement filed by the other defendants.
RFA 562/87 was filed by Zeenat Bee and her two sons, who were defendant Nos.
The trust deed further provided that on the death of the executant and his second wife, Hafiza Bi, his son, Mohd.
Issue Nos.
From the materials on record, it appears that besides owning several immovable properties, Mohd.
However, the trial Judge was of the view that the remaining properties were partible, but the plaintiff was number entitled to any share therein.
Khasim against the decision in RFAs No.
Imam Saheb had two sons, namely, Anwar and Nazeer.
Imam Saheb.
1 to 3 in the schedule to the plaint were number partible and companyld number form the subject matter of any partition.
The objects for which the income from the properties were to be expended are mostly of a pious and religious nature.
It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had been informed by his father that if he executed the Release Deed, Hafiza Bi, second wife of Mohd.
Dastagir.
Imam Saheb re possessed certain properties from Hafiza Bi by way of oral gift.
9 and 10 were declared to be entitled to an undivided 7/44th share each in the suit properties.
8 to 10 in respect of issue Nos.
196/90 and RFA No.
Imam Saheb were under his protection, he would be free to enjoy the properties according to his will and desire and that he would also have the liberty to alienate the trust properties and to purchase fresh properties for the benefit of the trust.
On 18th August, 1958, Mohd.
3,4,5 ,7,8,9 and 10 by filing separate written statements.
562/87,823/87, 196/90 and 561/87, were filed against the aforesaid judgment.
RFA 561/87 was filed by the plaintiff Mohd.
Imam Saheb also stipulated that certain charitable works, which were recognized by Islam to have religious companynotations, were to be performed.
He also had three daughters and one son by his second wife, Hafiza Bi, since deceased, namely, Fathima Bee, Mahaboob Bee, Kathija Bee and Mohammed Khasim.
After execution of the said Deed of Release, Mohd.
Khasim, took the defence that his late father had created a trust by virtue of the Trust deed dated 29th February, 1960 and had appointed the 7th defendant as a trustee for the purpose of performing various religious rites companypled with the companydition that the properties were number to be alienated.
Imam Saheb executed a Deed of Trust on 29th February, 1960, in respect of his various properties both movable and immovable.
4 and 5 in the suit and RFA No.196/90 was filed by Mohd.
3023 3024/2000 have been filed by defendant No.7 Mohd.
Imam Saheb, we are unable to agree with the findings both of the trial companyrt as well as the High Court for the reasons hereinafter following.
The executant also made provision for his daughters and a statement was made in the trust deed that the Will which the executant had executed on 9th January, 1959 was also being cancelled by virtue of the trust deed.
3025 3026/2000 have been filed against the same judgment in disposing of RFA No.
Imam Sahebs death, his son Mohd.
The case made out by him was that the Release Deed which had been executed by him on 18th August, 1958, in favour of Mohd.
It was the further case of the plaintiff that after execution of the Release Deed, Mohd.
1,2, and 6 did number choose to companytest the suit and remained ex parte.
13 and 14 were, therefore, answered in the affirmative in favour of defendant Nos.
After holding that the Trust Deed had number been acted upon at all, the High Court came to the companyclusion that on a companystruction of the documents in question, the final irresistible inference was that neither had any valid trust number valid wakf been created in the eye of law so as to deprive the plaintiff from getting a share in the property left by his father.
Civil Appeal Nos.
561/87 and Civil Appeal Nos.
562/87.
Khasim was dismissed.
The trust deed indicates that during his lifetime, Mohd.
4 and 5 and defendant Nos.
The four appeals were taken up for hearing together by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court and were disposed of by a companymon judgment dated 5th October, 1998.
While deciding the aforesaid appeals, the High Court took a view which was companypletely different from the views expressed by the trial Judge with regard to the interpretation of the Deed of Release and the Trust Deed executed by Mohd.
RFA 823/87 was filed by Smt.
Appearing on behalf of Mohd.
The appeals preferred by the defendant Nos.
The said reasoning was number accepted by the High Court.
Khasim, the appellant in all these four appeals, Dr. Nafis Ahmed Siddiqui, learned advocate, submitted that the High Court had erred in companying to a finding that neither the Release Deed number the Trust Deed had been acted upon and that the estate of Mohd.
WITH C.A.NOS.3025 3026/2000 ALTAMAS KABIR,J. One Mohammed Imam Saheb owned various immovable properties in Malleswaram in Bangalore.
Dr. Siddiqui pointed out that each of the duties entrusted to the trustees who were to companye into the management of the properties after the death of Mohd.
However, the trial companyrt went on to hold that the other properties forming part of the estate of Mohd.
