SYED ANSAMDDIN Vs. TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment and decree in O.S. 4272/77 on the file of First Asst. City Civil Judge, Madras. The suit is for declaration that the order dated 13.5.1976 of the first defendant-first respondent Wakf Board in W.A. No. 17/71, on its file, is not binding on the plaintiff and for appointment of the plaintiff as hereditary muthavalli of the suit Wakf. The court below has granted first of the above said two prayers, but negatived the next. The court below has negatived the above said prayer on the ground that Muslim Law does not recognise hereditary muthavalliship. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal seeking the later relief, namely, the appointment of himself as hereditary muthavlli.

(2.) I must first of all point out that the prayer for ?appointment? of the plaintiff as ?hereditary muthavalli? is not maintainable at all. The court has no power to appoint any body as hereditary muthavalli though it has power to appoint a muthavalli under certain circumstances. (Vide S. 204(2)(d) of Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan Law). If the prayer is for declaration that the plaintiff is hereditary muthavalli, such a declaration no doubt can be granted by the court. By such a declaration, the court only puts its seal of its approval of the plaintiff's pre-existing right of hereditary muthavalliship. By appointment, it confers muthavalliship for the first time on the plaintiff. The court has no such power of conferring hereditary muthavalliship on any person.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the court below and hence the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.