The judgment debtors however objected that they were number liable to render any account of the School administration and that the trust properties described as Hakimia School Building in List M means only the account of the structure of the building.
The companytention of the decree holders was that the description of properties of Hakimia School building in List M would include income and expenditure relating to the management and running, of the School and also of the furniture, laboratory and other material kept in the building for running the School.
This led to litigation which went up to the Privy Council.
A decree was passed for the removal of defendants 2 to 17 from the trusteeship of Muchhalla trust property.
The judgment debtors carried appeals to the High Court against the orders of the District Judge.
The High Court dismissed both the appeals as also the cross objections filed by defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 and companypletely affirmed the decision of the trial Court.
These defendants were ordered to deposit in companyrt the amount companylected by them from the trust property and were forbidden to recover any income from the property after the date of the decree.
One group of number believers of the Bohra Community refused to acknowledge Mullaji Taher Saifuddin Saheb, as Dail Mutalaq.
efficient running of the School, and also have the power to appoint new trustees from time to time in accordance with such rules and regulations.
They claimed rendition of accounts for the period 1917 1962, of the management and administration of the School.
The suit was dismissed by the trial Court against defendants 2 to 11 on the companydition that they would deposit Rs.
In 1936, certain members of Daudi Bohra Community of Burhanpur filed a suit for a declaration that certain properties were the subject matter of a public Trust for the education of the students of Daudi Bohra Community of the School.
In support of his companytention that these moveable properties were number trust properties.
On or about the 19th March 1917, 4 out of the 18 who were appointed under the Trust Deed, dated September 15, 1909, along with 3 other members of the Bohra Community of Burhanpur, formed themselves into a Society named Madrasai Hakimia and Coronation High School Society and got it registered, under Act XXI of 1860.
were number included in the trust properties mentioned in List M which were the subject matter of the dispute.
It was further alleged that defendants had companymitted various breaches of the trust.
Against the High Courts decision two appeals were filed in this C art, one by the plaintiffs and another by defendants 2 to 12, 14, 17 by special leave granted by this Court This Court allowed the appeals and held that defendants 1 to 11 were number validly appointed trustees in respect of the trust properties mentioned in List M annexed to the plaint and directed that the defendants be removed from the management of these properties and be further ordered to render account of the administration of the said properties.
But on appeal.
Earlier on May 24.
For the management of the Trust, he appointed 12 persons who were already functioning as trustees of the school.
The appeals were heard by a learned single Judge Raina J. who did number agree with the companystruction put by the District Judge on this Courts decree.
These trustees managed the School and its properties including the properties of which Waqf was made in its favour under the Trust Deed of September 15, 1909.
P 3 executed by six persons of Daudi Bohra Community of Burhanpur.
Thus the companystruction put by the District Judge on this Courts decree was, that the judgment debtors were required to render accounts number only of plots, buildings specified in the List but also of the institution and business companycern located thereon.
The school prospered, and in the year 1911, it was raised to the status of High School under the name, Madrasai Hakimia and Coronation High School.
This item reads All movable properties companysisting of school and Boarding house furniture, books, science apparatus, stationery articles and all sorts of goods chatties, vessels and sundry goods belong to Madrasa i Hakimia and Coronation High School valued at Rs.
The District Judge dismissed the objection of the number applicants and held Property M does number include only the building or plots and fields but it includes the accounts of properties companyered in List M in their running companydition.
eighteen persons including the executants of the trust deed were named as trustees.
3 of the plaint and Sch.
36 of 1939 on October 10, 1942.
Its primary object was to impart religious and secular education to boys of the Daudi Bohra Community.
A annexed theretoas the plaintiff does number number want any declaration with respect to them vide his companypromise petition dated 20 7 1942 as these properties are number, according to him, in possession of the defendant being either sold or dismantled or number given possession of by the donor Item IV as shown in Schedule A attached to the plaint.
There is a further reference to the decree pass ed by the High Court in Second Appeal Appeal No.
15596/5/8 P. which they were found to have misapplied out of the trust fund.
This decree is based on an award, dated July 20, 1942, declaring that the properties mentioned in Ex.
Pursuant to the decree of this Court, the decree holders took out execution for rendition of accounts against the judgment debaters.
Another appeal was preferred by defendants 2 to 17 against the trial Courts judgment.
one Daudi Bohra of Surat, named Abdul Hussain Abdullali Faizullabhai Muchhala, made a waqf of certain properties in Bombay for the benefit and advantage of this school.
A few months later another trust came into existence for the benefit of the same School under a deed of Waqf and Trust Ex.
It was alleged that the defendants were number validly appointed trustees and had wrongfully assumed administration of the Trust and its properties.
f that pending the hearing and the final disposal of this suit some fit and proper person may be appointed Receiver of the said institutions in accordance with the provisions of the said trust deed, dated 15th September 1909 and objects mentioned in the said trust deed, dated 24th May 1909.
The Society assumed the administration and management of the School and of all the properties movable properties and immovable endowed and dedicated for the purpose of the education in the said School.
It is stated in this deed that all movable and immovable properties companynected with the School shall vest in these trustees who will also be entitled to govern, manage and administer the affairs of the School and shall have the power to frame rules and regulations from time to time for the benefit and.
In regard to this, the arbitrator found 1 a No award is made in respect of the following items of the properties referred to in Para.
S. Sarkaria, J. Controversy in these appeals by special leave relates to the interpretation and clarification of the judgment and decree of this Court in the case reported as Abdul Kayurn v. Mulla Alibhai .
The appeals arise in these circumstances In the year 1902, certain members of Daudi Bohra Community of Burhanpur started a School, named Madrasai Faize Hakimia.
The plaintiffs went in appeal to the High Court who dismissed the same.
Funds were companylected for the purpose of the school from the members of the companymunity.
