EBRAHIM AHMED BHAIMIA Vs. DAWOOD AHMED BHAIMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION No. 4325 of 2000 has been filed for interim stay of further proceedings in C. S. No. 640 of 2000, pending disposal of the application for rejection of plaint and this Court has granted interim stay on 16. 10. 2000. APPLICATION No. 4326 of 2000 has been filed for rejection of the plaint in C. S. No. 640 of 2000 as not maintainable, non-est, devoid of jurisdiction. APPLICATION Nos. 418 to 420 of 2001 have been filed for impleading the parties.

(2.) THE applicant, the first defendant in the suit is one of the Muthavallis of wakf estate of one Bhaimia, by the Wakf Deed dated 12th march, 1943. By the said Wakf Deed, the Wakif bequeathed the properties at various places for the beneficiaries specified in the Wakf Deed. It was a composite "wakf Alal Aulad". THE validity of the Wakf has been upheld in C. S. No. 465 of 1949 on the file or this Court. In W. P. No. 202 of 1966, this court, has held, the wakf estate is a "private composite wakf to the extent property dedicated for charitable purpose. " But the entire deed was treated as wakf. This petitioner being one of the muthavallis has been managing the wakf estate from 1993 onwards. THEre are two other muthavallis who are away from India . Taking advantage of that, one of the muthavallis (28th defendant in the suit)illegally collected Rs. 1. 25 lakhs from the tenants of wakf property and did not account for it. THE suit recently filed to frame a scheme is bad in law and for non-joinder of necessary parties. THErefore, the suit has to be rejected and all proceedings have to be stayed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per section 3 of the Wakf Act, 1995, in a "wakf-alal-aulad" to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any religious or charitable or pious purpose can be said to be wakf; and under this deed, only 10% of the income derived from the properties are dedicated for pious, religious and charitable purpose and therefore, only 10% of the income can be treated as wakf and the remaining income does not fall within the definition of wakf. Since this suit is onlywith respect to the remaining 90% of the income which is not dedicated for pious or charitable purpose, the Wakf Board is not a necessary party before this Court and therefore, these applications are liable to be dismissed.