CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mukerji, J., Guha, J.
Debendra Nath Sadhukhan & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Naharmal Jalan & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 18-12-1929
Wakf - Property Dedication - Wakf Act - Section 100, T.P. Act - Article 142, Limitation Act - Article 144, Limitation Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and possession of properties dedicated as wakf by Idun Bibi. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the properties appertain to the wakf of Idun Bibi and for recovery of possession and mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:
The Subordinate Judge held that the properties in Schedule A were wakf properties and entitled the plaintiffs to a declaration and confirmed their possession. However, the suit for possession of the properties in Schedule B was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Issues: The extent and character of the wakf, the question of limitation, and the declaration of a charge on the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the wakfnama created an absolute endowment vesting the properties in the mosque. It held that Article 142 of the Limitation Act applied, and the plaintiffs failed to establish possession within 12 years before the suit. The court also ruled that there was no charge on the properties in Schedule B.
Final Decision: The appeal failed, and the cross-objections succeeded. The properties in Schedule A were declared as wakf properties, and the possession was confirmed. The suit related to the properties in Schedule B was dismissed. The plaintiffs were awarded costs, and the cross-objecting respondents were granted their respective costs from the appellants.
JUDGMENT
Mukerji, J. - One Khedu Jamadar had in his lifetime built and consecrated a mosque at Tiljala, in the suburbs of Calcutta, the place where he resided. The mosque was originally a tiled hut, but subsequently he made it brick-built. He made a will in 1867 and died in 1871, leaving him surviving his first wife Dulera Bibi and a daughter by her named Alijan, and a second wife Idun Bibi whom be had married as a widow, and by the latter a son named Didarbux. Idun Bibi had a daughter named Raju Bibi by her first husband. By his will he bequeathed a ten annas share of his properties to his first wife Dulera Bibi and the remaining six annas thereof to his second wife Idun Bibi and his son Didarbux. On Khedu Jamadar's death the two widows fell out, but the dispute was eventually settled by a sort of a family arrangement arrived at with the help of some arbitrators, and this arrangement was embodied in and carried out by two documents executed and registered in 1872. By this arrangement Idun Bibi and her son got in her six annas share the mosque at Tiljala and the lands adjoining, and two items of properties at Salkia. During her life Idun Bibi acquired certain properties and eventually, on 23rd June 1884, executed a wakfnama and had it registered in respect of nine items of properties including the properties she had got under the arrangement aforesaid. Some out of these properties are included in this suit in two schedules, Schedule A being about 10 cottahs of land in Tiljala and Schedule B consisting of 5 plots of land in Salkia.
2 The plaintiffs' case is that Idun Bibi acted as mutwalli in, accordance with the wakfnama till her death in 1889, that after her death her daughter's, that is Raju Bibi's, son Alum succeeded her as mutwalli and acted as such till his death, which took place in 1894, that Haji Alum left a widow Samiran Bibi and four sons Nabibox, Hayatubox, Rahimbox and Kaderbox, that one Dina Nath Sanyal prevailed upon these persons to execute two mortgages in his favour, in respect of plot 5 and plots 1 and 4 of Schedule B for Rs. 700 and Rs. 800 on 7th August 1896 and 8th January 1897 respectively, describing the said properties as secular properties, that the said Dina Nath Sanyal then caused a mortgage to be executed by those persons on 5th August 1897 in favour of one Nannilal Agarwalla in respect of the properties in Schedules A and B for Rs. 6,000 describing them as secular properties, and thereafter on 23rd August 1897 got them to sell the said properties to Ghashi Bibi, mother of Nannilal Agrani, in satisfaction of the said mortgage and for further consideration of Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff's case further is that Samiran Bibi, Nahibox and Rahimbox having died, plaintiff 1 Hayatubox and the pro forma defendant 20 Kaderbox remained to perform the duties of mutwalli. But inasmuch as both of them had to remain continually absent from India on service since 1909, and Kaderbox expressed his unwillingness to act as mutwalli, plaintiff 2 appointed Kassoo Jamadar at mutwalli on 18th July 1919. The plaintiffs' case further is that plaintiff 2, since his appointment as mutwalli, attempted to take possession of the properties in suit which are all wakf properties but was resisted by the defendants. It is also said that plaintiff 2, with a view to re-cover the properties, gave a lease to plaintiff 3 for a period of 99 years on receipt of premium of Rs. 12,000. The suit was instituted on 22nd December 1921 with prayers for a declaration that the properties appertain to the wakf of Idun Bibi, for recovery of possession and also for mesne profits.
3. Besides the pro forma defendant 20 Kaderbox, to whom reference has already been made, there were 19 principal defendants. Of these Nos. 1 to 8 were the Sanyals being the representatives of Dina Nath Sanyal whose name has appeared before, Nos. 9 to 11 (of whom No. 10 Nannilal Agrani having died, his name was struck out) are the representatives of Ghashi Bibi who has also been refe
Rama Reddy Vs. Ranga Dasan and Others
Bibi Jinjira Khatun and Others Vs. Mahomed Fakirulla Mea and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.