Fresh settlements were, however, subsequently made by the Government as a result of which previously existing rights were revived usually on the same terms as before.
This happened in regard to the properties appertaining to the Darga.
This body had been looking after the Darga and the performance of ceremonies and other services at the shrine.
Certain properties were endowed by the Emperors of Delhi in favour of this tomb and accretions were made to the said properties by the savings from the income of the endowed properties and the offerings brought by the devotees.
The case for respondent I also was that the appellants suit was barred by limitation and was incompetent inasmuch as before the filing of the suit the appellants had number given the statutory numberice as required by s. 53 of the Act.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 22, 1953/24th February, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in F. C. Appeal No.
As a result of these observations the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh filed a suit, No.
On the question of limitation the learned judge held that s. 5 2 of the Act applied to the suit but, according to him, though the suit was filed beyond the period of one year prescribed by the said section, it was within time having regard to the provisions of s. 14 of the Limitation Act.
During this period Inayatulla attempted to assert his rights once more by instituting a suit in the civil companyrt in 1892.
Their appeal succeeded and on March 7, 1946, the decree under appeal was set aside, though a few minor amendments were made in the original scheme of management.
K. Dar, Ch.
It was urged that respondent I was a duly companystituted Sunni Central Board and it was authorised to exercise supervision over the management of the said waqf.
It was held that the proprietary rights of the Government in respect of the properties had been alienated for ever in favour of the charity and so the properties were declared to vest in the endowment.
This suit ended in a decree on December 3, 1902.
By the decree the properties in suit were declared to vest in the trustees when appointed .
121 of 1955.
In his opinion it was number the village Singha Parasi but its profits free from land revenue that had been granted in trust for the shrine and its khadims and since the usufruct of the profits was subject to the companydition of resumption and since the profits had number been vested in the Almighty, the grant cannot be companystrued to be a waqf as companytemplated by Muhamniadan Law.
The managing companymittee and the trustees, however, challenged the said decree by preferring an appeal to the Chief Court.
This decision was reached after the Government had companysidered the report made by the Deputy Commissioner on August 31, 1878.
After this numberification was issued, respondent 1 called upon the companymittee of management of 1295 the waqf to submit its annual budget for approval and to get its accounts audited by its auditors.
The result of declaring that the properties were governed by the provisions of the Pensions Act was to free the properties from the mortgages created by the khadims.
Inayatullas right to manage the said properties under the terms of the grant was, however, recognized.
That in brief is the back ground of the present dispute.
The grantee was given the right to companylect the usufruct of the village which was to be appropriated towards the maintenance of the Darga.
On October 16, 1941, the suit was decreed.
Inayatullas suit was substantially dismissed on November 11, 1870, by the Settlement Officer.
On receiving this companyplaint a companymittee of mussalmans was appointed to examine the affairs of the Darga and to make a report.
This peace was, however, again disturbed in 1940 when a suit was filed No.
1291 Against this decree respondent I preferred an appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench and the appellants filed cross objections.
As a result of these findings the appeal preferred by respondent I was allowed, the appellants cross objections were dismissed, the decree passed by the trial companyrt was set aside and the appellants suit dismissed April 22, 1953 .
The scheme thus framed came into operation and the trustees appointed under it began to manage the Darga and its properties.
Bhimabai and Narayan appealed to the Bombay High Court, but their appeal failed and was dismissed Bhimabai v. Gurunathgouda 3 .
Their claim was decreed by the trial companyrt but on appeal the said decree was set aside on July 20, 1897.
9 of 1902, under s. 539 present s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On the same day when the suit was filed, an interim injunction was issued against the defendants and it was companyfirmed when the suit was decreed in favour of Gurunathgouda.
Two trustees who did number join the appellants in filing the suit are impleaded as pro forma defendants 2 and 3 and they are respondents 2 and 3 before us.
In this suit Inayatullah and two others who had joined him claimed possession of the Darga together with the buildings appurtenant thereto and village Singha Parasi.
Soon after this decision, it was brought to the numberice of the Chief Commissioner in 1872 that the khadims at the Darga were mismanaging the properties of the Darga and were number properly maintaining the Darga itself.
Respondent I also purported to levy the usual companytributions against the waqf under s. 54 of the Act.
For nearly six years after the date of this order the Darga and its properties appear to have been free from any litigation.
This decree was passed on April 15, 1947.
In 1934 Ashraf Ali and others clamed Suit No.
The management of the Darga and its properties by the Government companytinued until 1902.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1289 GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The suit from which this appeal arises relates to a shrine and tomb known as Darga Hazarat Syed Salar Mahsood Ghazi situated in the village of Singha Parasi and properties appurtenant to it.
On his death his remains were buried in village Singha Parasi by his followers and subsequently a tomb was companystructed.
Whilst this litigation was pending between the parties, the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act U.P. XIII of 1936 was passed in 1936 for better governance, administration and supervision of the specified muslim waqfs in U. P. In pursuance of the provisions of the Act, respondent I was companystituted and, under s. 5 1 , it issued the numberification on February 26, 1944, declaring the properties in suit to be a Sunni Waqf under the Act.
By this injunction the defendants were ordered number to take the crops from the fields in suit, number to interfere with the plaintiffs wahiwat to the said lands, number to take rent numberes from the tenants and number to obstruct the plaintiff from taking the crops raised by him or from taking monies from his tenants .
As a companysequence, an injunction was issued restraining respondent 1 from removing or dissolving the companymittee of management of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 number otherwise than provided for under s. 18 of the Act in so far as the management and supervision of those properties are companycerned in respect of which the appellants were number being granted a decree for a declaration sought for by them in view of the absence of the numberice under s. 53 of the Act .
Whilst the management of the Darga was being thus carried on, Oudh came to be annexed in 1856 and the proclamation issued by Lord Canning companyfiscated all private properties and inams in the said State.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court to prefer an appeal to this Court under Art.
1292 The tomb was managed by a body of persons known as Khuddams of the Darga.
The companymittee submitted its report on February 20, 1877, and made recommendations for the improvement of the management of the Darga and its properties.
It was alleged that the properties in suit did form a waqf as defined by the Act and were companyered by its operative provisions.
The scheme appears to have worked smoothly until 1934.
1 of 1940 with the sanction of the Advocate General by five plaintiffs against the managing companymittee and its trustees for their removal and for the framing of a fresh scheme.
1 of 1934 that an injunction should be issued restraining the defendants from taking part in the management of the affairs of the Darga.
Meanwhile some of the lands appurtenant to the Darga had been sold and offerings made by the devotees as well as other properties had become the subject matter of attachment.
That is the basis of the reliefs claimed by the appellants in their plaint.
It is partly from the income of these offerings that the tomb is maintained.
Akhtar Hussain and C. P. Lal, for the appellants.
September 16.
The plaintiffs also prayed that the defendants should be prohibited from spending monies belonging to the waqf on frivolous litigations due to party feelings.
The members of the companymittee of management and the trustees with the exception of two persons held that the properties in suit did number companystitute a waqf within the meaning of the Act and that respondent 1 had numberauthority or jurisdiction to supervise the management of the said properties.
The decree further provided for a scheme for the management of 1294 the Darga and its properties.
The appellants claim was resisted by respondent I on several grounds.
and Is the suit maintainable without numberice as required by s. 53 of the Act ?
According to the companymittee, it was necessary to appoint a jury of five persons including two khadims to manage the Darga and its properties.
These issues were answered against Narayan by the trial companyrt.
The declaration, the companysequential injunction and the two other subsidiary reliefs are claimed primarily against respondent 1, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh.
Even so, the appellate companyrt observed that it was number proper or companypetent for the Government to interfere in the management of the waqf and its properties the Darga was a religious establishment within the meaning or Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863 and the assumption of the management of the Darga and its properties was unauthorised and improper.
The appellate companyrt of the Judicial Commissioner held that Inayatullas allega tion that the proprietary interest in the properties vested in him was number justified.
There was a further appeal by the said parties to the Privy Council.
25 of 1946.
Niyamatullah, Onkar Nath Srivastava, J. B. Dadachanji, N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No.
The rest of the appellants claim was dismissed.
25 of 1946 .
The appellants case is that the properties in suit are outside the operative provisions of the Act and number subject to the jurisdiction of respondent 1, arid so, according to the appellants, respondent 1 has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in assuming authority over the management of the said properties.
1 of 1865, claiming proprietary rights in the said properties.
The plaintiffs who have preferred this appeal are members of the Waqf Committee, Darga Sharif, Bharaich, and, in their suit, they have claimed a declaration that the properties in suit were number companyered by the provisions of the United Provinces Muslims Waqfs Act U. P. XIII of 1936 hereinafter described as the Act .
50 of 1947, arising out of the judgment and decree dated April 15, 1947, of the Court of the Civil Judge, Bahraich, in Regular Suit No.
The plea raised by respondent 1 under s. 53 of the Act was partly upheld by the learned trial judge he took the view that the first three relief, , claimed by the appellants were barred but the fourth was number.
In companyrse of time this tomb became an object of pilgrimage and veneration.
That is how the appellants came to institute the present suit on October 18, 1946, against respondent 1.
The grantees son Inayatulla was apparently number satisfied with the limited rights granted under the Sanad and so he brought an action, Suit No.
Urs began to be held at the shrine every year and it was attended by a large number of devotees who made offerings before the shrine.
The properties attached to the Darga were numberexception.
Is the suit in time ?
