1 died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 4 to 10 who were brought on record on their own application as heirs and legal representatives to the exclusion of the daughter of Abdul Wahid defended the suit.
Against the decree passed by the High Court, this appeal with special leave under Art.
Fakruddin died in 1921 leaving him surviving his wife Sulaiman Bi and two daughters Rahmat Unnissa and Syed Unnissa.
Rahmat Unnissa the eldest daughter of Fakruddin was impleaded as defendant No.
They denied the right of the plaintiffs to a share in the income companytending that lay custom in the family, females were excluded from inheritance, that the office of Peshimam, Khatib and Mujavar companyld only be held by males and that females were excluded from those offices, that the plaintiffs claim was barred by the law of limitation and that in any event the suit for a mere declaration was number maintainable.
1 in suit No.
Sulaiman Bi is plaintiff No.
By the scheme, provision was.
made for distribution of the surplus income amongst the members of the four families.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 29 1952, of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
Abdul Wahid defendant No.
In original suit No.
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 then filed suit No.
Sheik Mohammad Fakir Mohammad Sheik Miran Giasuddin Nismat Ulla Khamruddin Nayeem Uddir Fakir Mohammad FakruddinSulai Niama Ulla Abdul Safi man Bi Wahid Ulla 2nd plaintiff 1st deft.
By Custom females and persons claiming through females were excluded from receiving a share of the income and the income was distributed amongst the males descended in the male fine.
156 of 1937 in the companyrt of the District Munsif at Chingleput .For a declaration that they were entitled to enjoy the properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and to manage the Durgah, perform the Urs festival and receive all incomes, endowments and perquisites thereof once in every eight years since 1934 according to their turn.
2 and plaintiff No.
The income of the institution after disbursing the expenses of Sandal, and Urs and of feeding the poor has since long been shared by descendants in four families in equal shares.
2 were obstructed by Abdul Wahid son of Nayeem Uddin belonging to the other branch in Sheik Mohammads family.
The Trial Judge held and the appellate companyrt agreed with him that there was an immemorial custom governing the institutions precluding the plaintiffs from performing services or sharing the income, emoluments and perquisites and therefore the plaintiffs were number entitled to perform those services and enjoy the surplus income, and accordingly they were number entitled to the declaration of an injunction prayed for.
He was also by arrangement with others entitled to perform the Urs ceremony once in eight years.
The Nawab of Carnatic had granted two villages in inam for the maintenance of the Durgah and the Masjid.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the year 1926, it was the turn of Fakruddin to perform the Urs and it is claimed by the plaintiffs that it was performed on behalf of the widow and daughters of Fakruddin by their deputies.
512 of 1957.
In second appeal, the High Court at Madras held that by virtue of the Shariat Act, 1937, the income received from the institution had to be shared according to the per sonal law of the parties and that the plaintiffs claim was number barred by the law of limitation number was the suit open to the objection that it was as framed number maintainable.
Fakruddin, in the following genealogy, belonged to one of the four families which received the income.
Offerings from the devotees who visited the Durgah and the Maajid were also received.
Nayeemuddin died unmarried Ramat Syed Un Unnissa 2nd nissa Ist defendant plaintiff As a descendant of Sheik Mohammad, Fakruddin received a 1/8th share of.
They also claimed an injunction restraining Abdul Wahib from interfering with their rights in that behalf.
the income.
2349 of 1946.
27 of 1940 of the file of the Subordi nate Judge, Chingleput, a scheme was framed for administration of the Durgah and the Masjid and a Board of trustees was appointed for that purpose.
The next turn was in the year 1934, but in the performance of the Urs, the plaintiffs and defendant No.
156 of 1937 out of which this appeal arises.
February 14.
Azizuddin and K. R. Choudhury , for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. There is in the village of Cavelong, District Chiugleput in the State of Madras an ancient Durgah to which is appurtenant a Masjid.
2 and Rahmat Unnissa and Syed Unnissa are respectively defendant No.
1 and 2.
Shaukat Hussain and P.C. Agarwala, for respondents Nos.
