CHIYYAMU Vs. BAPPU ALIAS MUHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of Velu Pillai j. in second appeal confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge, who himself reversed the decision of the Munsiff. The short question to be considered is the interpretation of a wakf deed (Ex. Al) regarding the management of the wakf.

(2.) THE wakif, Ummathumma, directed that the wakf property would be managed by herself during her lifetime, after her death by her son, kunhu, after his death by her daughter, Kathija Umma, and after her death by the senior most males among Kathija's children. It was also provided that if any of the aforesaid persons committed default in the management, the then-anandiravans would have the right to take possession and manage the wakf " (paragraph 4 of Ex. A-1 ). Ummathumma had four children; but at the 'time of the wakf only one son. Kunhu, and one daughter, Kathija, were alive. Kathija had four sons, kunhu Moidu, Kammali, Moidunni and the second respondent (the first defendant ). THE first respondent (the second defendant) is the son of Kunhu. Two of the sons of Kathija married two daughters of Kunhu; and the appellant (the plaintiff) is the son of Kunhu Moidu and a daughter of Kunhu. THE allegation in the plaint was that the second respondent, who was entitled to manage the wakf, was hot managing properly and bad allowed the first respondent to take possession of the property and claim it as his own. THE appellant also claimed that he, as the next anandiravan, was entitled to recover possession of the property from the first respondent and manage the same. THE second respondent remained ex parte; and we may also point out that he died pending this appeal.

(3.) IN the result, the decision in second appeal confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge is set aside; and the decision of the Munsiff is restored. The first respondent (the second defendant), who has been resisting the claim of the appellant right through and who has himself no right to manage, will pay the costs of the appellant throughout. Allowed.