He companytended that the properties were governed by the Wakf which was valid and also that he was entitled to a numberice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the suit was filed.
On November 15, 1957 an application for amendment of the relief against the Wakf Commissioner was made to which the Wakfs Commissioner objected.
The appellant objected but on April 20, 1960 the Munsif allowed the application and declared the decree to be void.
The suit was filed in the Court of Munsif, Howrah and reliefs claimed were a declaration that the Wakf was invalid, inoperative and void and that its enrolment in the Wakf Office was wrongly done and was of numberavail.
In his objections he stated that the suit was of a companylusive nature as was apparent from the nature of the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendants other than himself.
The Commissioner then filed a revision under s. 115, C.P.C. and a learned single Judge of the High Court by the order, number under appeal, reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and restored the decree of the Munsif.
Appeal by special leave, from the judgment and order dated August 20, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
As a result the name of the Commissioner was struck off as a defendant.
This claim was made against respondents 2 to 4 who were the Mutwalis.
On the same day an application for striking off the name of the Commissioner from the array of the defendants was made.
On February 14, 1956 the present appellant Ayesha Bibi filed a suit claiming 1 /16th of the property as a sharer after the death of her husband Abdul Hamid.
She also asked for a permanent injunction restaining the Commissioner of West Bengal and other respondents from interfering with the possession of the property.
He stated that although he was entitled to a numberice under s. 70 1 of the Bengal Wakfs Act, 1934 it was, number necessary to add him as a defendant and he denied companylusion between himself and the other defendants.
Ayesha Bibi joined the Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal as a defendant to the suit.
The Commissioner of Wakfs appeared in answer to the numberice of the suit and filed a written statement on April 4, 1956.
The suit was also decreed the same day on companypromise declaring the Wakf to be invalid and void and granting a perpetual injunction.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He observed that the other defendants were interested in secularising the wakf property for their own selfish ends.
The appellant appealed to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah and the appeal was allowed.
The order is challenged in this appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta, August 20, 1964, in an application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah.
1715 of 1961.
The facts are as follows One Haji Abdul Karim, grandfather of respondents 2 to 4 exe cuted a Wakf al al aulad on March 30, 1917.
579 of 1966.
C. Mitra and S. C. Majumdar, for respondent No.
N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
On June 20, 1958 the Commissioner made an application under s. 70 4 of the Act for a declaration that the decree was void as numbernotice was given to him under s. 70 1 of the Act.
He companystituted himself as the first Mutwali and named his two sons and widow as Mutwalis after his own death.
The Wakf provided for the benefit of the family and after the extinction of all the family a scheme for feeding,the poor.
