The knowledge of the Chairman of a Wakf Board, who is also the counsel for one of the parties in a suit, cannot be attributed to the Board, unless there is a conflict of duty and the Chairman had obtained the knowledge in an informal manner and in a context that had no relation to the functions of the Board.

M. ANANTANARAYANAN, Offg. C. J. - This Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the Wakf Board of Madras State represented by its Secretary, from the judgement of Kailasam, J., in C.M.P. No. 6252 of 1964 in S.A. No. 965 of 1961. We may very briefly state, before setting out the essential facts necessary for an analysis of the ground of controversy in this appeal, that the application was under the Muslim Wakf Act, for declaring a particular decree (decree in O.S. No. 432 of 1956 on the file of the Third Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, confirmed by the judgement in A.S. No. 437 of 1958, District Court, Tiruchirapalli and S.A. No. 965 of 1961 of this Court) as void within the scope of S. 57, sub-clause (3) of the Act (29 of 1954). The learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) dismissed the petition as barred by limitation and the appeal is from this order.

2. Before proceeding to the facts, it may be necessary to notice the precise terms of S. 57(1) and 57(3) of the Wakf Act (29 of 1954). Section 57(1) states -

"In every suit or proceeding relating to title to wakf property.... the Court shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding."

2-A. Under Section 57(3) "In the absence of a notice under Sub-Section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the Court in this behalf".

3. The following events and dates, furnishing the background of the litigation, are essential for a proper understanding of the ground of controversy. The dispute related to a wakf known as Rustom Saheed Durga Wakf in Sirudayur village, Tiruchirapalli district. Admittedly the wakf was included in the list of wakfs published by the Wakf Board in the ' Fort St, George Gazette, dated 10-2-1958. A certain Kandaswami Iyer filed O.S. No. 616 of 1949 and O.S. No. 12 of 1950 in the District Munsifs Court, Tiruchirapalli, for recovery of possession of two properties, S. Nos. 131/3 and 132 of Sirudayur village, and these actions were resisted by the Durga on the ground that these were properties of the Durga in which the plaintiff had no right whatever. It is admitted that the suits were dismissed by the trial Court (the learned District Munsif), on 15-10-1951. First appeals were filed by the plaintiff concerned in the Court of the Sub-judge, Tiruchirapalli, and they were numbered as A.S. Nos. 49 and 50 of 1952 and dealt with on the merits. It is not in dispute that the appeals were allowed on 2-9-1952 thereby declaring the title of the plaintiff and his right to possession. S.A. Nos. 2053 and 2054 of 1952 were again decided in favour of that plaintiff and were dismissed by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. on 25-1-1956. In this context itself, we may note that the Muslim Wakf Act 29 of 1954 received the assent of the President on 21-5-1954. There was a period of an interregnum, when no Wakf Board under the Act was constituted in Madras State; but ultimately such a Board was constituted on 1-2-1958.

4. There was a subsequent suit O.S. No. 432 of 1956 instituted on behalf of the Durga, for a declaration that the decrees in the two previous suits in the First Appellate Court and in second appeals in this Court, which allowed and established the claim of the plaintiff (Kandaswami Iyer) to the suit properties and his right to possession, were really fraudulent and collusive decrees, obtained by collusion between the plaintiff and the then representative of the Durga. This was dismissed by the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, on 22-4-1958 and the first appeal from this decree of dismissal, A.S. No. 437 of 1958, was dismissed by the District Judge on 7-9-1960. On 2-4-1964, the second appeal from the decree (S.A. No. 965 of 1961) was disposed of by Kailasam, J., and the second appeal was dismissed. The application out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises seems to have been instituted in July 1964.

5.