The High Court allowed the second appeal reversing the judgment of the first appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the trial Court.
641 of 1996 whereby a learned Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Respondents herein filed O.S. No.
20 of 1992 in the sub Court, Cuddalore for a declaration that the suit Darga and its property belongs to a wakf i.e., Wakf alal aulad, and the Wakf Board had numberjurisdiction to appoint Muthavllis for the said Darga and for injunction restraining the Wakf Board from interfering with the suit Darga and its property except claiming companytribution from the net income of the wakf.
In 1978, Safia Bi filed O.S. No.
As said earlier, the High Court heavily relied on Ex.
Larabsha companyveyed the suit property to his wife Khathija Bi by way of a Hibba with the intention of doing certain pious, religious and charitable purposes.
The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows Originally the suit property was Wakf property being a part of a Wakf property belonging to one Noor Mohammedsha Aulia Darga.
The said decision was taken up to the High Court by way of Second Appeal No.
Khathija Bi companyveyed the suit property to her grandson Syed Umar.
Hence the present appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by way of special leave petition before this Court.
108 of 1980 in the District Court, Cuddalore and the same was dismissed on 22.4.1983.
Heard Mr. J.M. Khanna, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Misra and Mr. K. Samidurai, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents.
Aggrieved by that judgment and order, Safia Bi filed a second appeal being S.A. No.
Against the said dismissal, S.L.P. c No.
189 of 1978 in the sub Court, Cuddalore for declaration that the suit property is number wakf property and it is their private property.
Heeralal and Khaleel Basha filed a petition in A.No.
In the appeal, namely, A.S. 206 on the file of District Court, Cuddalore filed by Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the appellate Judge basing reliance on earlier judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No.
In the meanwhile, on 8.8.1985, Safia Bi died and Adbarbasha and Abdulsalam were impleaded companylusively and fraudulently.
A1 and A2 granted decree as prayed for in favour of the plaintiffs.
The learned trial Judge after companysidering the relevant materials both oral and documentary particularly on the basis of Ex.
One Bahadursha, the 5th Janishan of Noor Mohammad Shah Khadari Darga, Panruti companyveyed the suit property to his disciple Shabansha and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same through his disciple Larabsha.
After the death of Syed Umar, his wife Safia Bi was managing the suit property and was performing the said pious, religious and charitable purposes.
LARABSHA HUSBAND DIED Kathija Bi Wife Died Syed Magdoom Son died Safia Bi died on 8.8.1985 Issueless Sainath Syed Ali Hi died Son Son Khaleel Basha Heeralal 2nd Plaintiff 1st Plaintiff The plaintiffs therein prayed for a decree declaring that Larabsha Dharga and its properties described in the schedule appended in the plaint are a private Wakf Wakf alal aulad.
In order to understand the dispute raised, it is relevant to refer the geneology of the family of late Larabsha referred to in the plaint in O.S. 20 of 1992 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
2486 of 1990 was filed by the respondents herein plaintiffs before this Court and the same was dismissed.
Against that order, the respondents herein filed a second appeal being S.A. No.
1104 of 1983 Ex.
Aggrieved by the said order, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board filed an appeal being A.S. No.
The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit Darga and its property belong to a private wakf.
The High Court on 10.1.1990 dismissed the second appeal holding that the suit property is wakf property and number a private trust property.
A3 accepted the stand of the Wakf Board and companycluded that the suit property is a Wakf property and number private Wakf alal aulad as claimed by the plaintiffs.
206 of 1994 in the District Court, Cuddalore and the same was allowed holding that the suit Darga and its property do number belong to a private wakf.
The High Court framed the following substantial question of law Whether the lower appellate companyrt had failed to companysider absence of specific plea of denial in the written statement that the said Dharga is number a private Wakf Based on the same, heard the argument on either side and finally by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and restored the decree of the trial Court.
641 of 1996 by the plaintiffs.
641 of 1996 in the High Court.
Against the said order, Safia Bi filed an appeal being A.S. No.
They also prayed for declaration that Hiralal and Kalilal Basha plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees of Larabsha Dharga and also prayed for permanent injunction.
1104 of 1983.
A 22 proforma report and other materials, the companyditions objects therein, the plaintiff had proved their case that the suit property belongs to Wakf alal aulad and the trial Court rightly decreed the suit though the lower appellate companyrt wrongly companycluded as it belongs to Wakf property and the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the decree of the trial Court.
1104 of 1983 in the High Court.
20 of 1985 before the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Madras to recognize and appoint them as hereditary Muthavllis to Larabsha Darga and its properties and the Wakf Board after holding enquiry appointed the respondents herein plaintiffs as joint Muthavallis recognizing their right to be hereditary trustees and legal representatives of late Larabsha.
Sathasivam, J. This appeal is preferred by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Chennai against the final judgment dated 25.6.2004 and decree dated 28.6.2004 passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No.
