Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH
Sk. Golam Maqusud – Appellant
Versus
Tahetul Masjid, Rep. by its Marfatdar/Mutawalli Saifuz Zaman Khan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on mosque and mutawalli succession. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. defendants claim waqf property status and managing committee rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court findings and issues framed. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. arguments on representation and legality of appointment. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. definition of mutawalli and powers under the waqf act. (Para 11) |
| 6. conclusion on maintainability of suit. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’), have assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.03.1994 & 02.04.1994 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur, By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Respondent No.1, being the unsuccessful Plaintiff in T.S. No.137 of 1990 of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Jajpur under section 96 of the Code has been allowed in part. The suit filed by the Respondent No.1, as the Plaintiff, having been dismissed of the Trial Court, the same has been decreed in part and thereby the Appellants (Defendants) have been injuncted from interfering in the management of the Mosque by Saifuz Zaman Khan, the Marfatdar/Mutawalli of
The Mutawalli's role is managerial and does not grant the authority to file suit on behalf of a mosque, which can only be done by the Waqf Board.
A Waqf cannot be created within an existing Waqf, and the Waqf Board lacks authority to create new Waqfs under the Waqf Act.
A suit under Section 92 CPC requires an established cause of action; claims based on lineage must be substantiated, otherwise, they are barred by limitation.
The Waqf Board must adhere to the rules of succession as per the waqf deed, reinforcing the principle of governance according to established customs and the intent of the waqif.
The jurisdiction over the appointment of Sajjadanashin is exclusively vested in the Karnataka State Board of Waqf, and civil courts cannot adjudicate such matters.
Removal from Mutawalliship of Waqf estate – Disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The judgment establishes the principle that a petitioner must demonstrate a direct injury or violation of legal rights to have locus standi to challenge an act, and waiver of specific rights may impa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
