S M PITCHAIYAMMAL Vs. TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the second appeals are disposed of by the following common judgment as the substantial questions of law involved are common to both the matters.

(2.) The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Secretary filed various suits before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, averring as follows: The properties set out in the different plaints had been dedicated for performing pious, religious and charitable deeds; they belong to a Wakf, the administration of which is governed by Central Act 29 of 1954 and as the properties had been alienated by the descendants of the settlors under various sale deeds to the defendants in the different suits, the suits were filed for a declaration that the sales were invalid in law, that the properties by their very nature, being inalienable and the alienations being beyond the powers of alienors, cannot bind the Wakf and that in those circumstances, for declaration that the suit properties in all the suits are Wakf properties and for possession of the same to the plaintiff on behalf of the Wakf.

(3.) The defence set up was as follows: There was no valid Wakf in respect of the suit properties; there was no dedication; there was also no final notification by the Wakf Board; the plaintiff has no title; the suit properties were the exclusive properties of the vendors and the alienations were valid; the suit claim was also out of time. The Wakf Board also could not claim the suit properties during the existence of any male or female heir in the line of settlor and the suits were premature; the alleged Wakf was not a public Wakf or notified as such after the statutory enquiry prescribed under the Act; the charities or religious deeds mentioned in the deed had not been performed at any time out of the income from the suit properties. The suit properties had all along been treated as absolute private properties by the members of the family of Ibramsa Rowther. The alleged Wakf, if any, was illusory, illegal, invalid and had not come into effect. The alienees had purchased the properties from the descendants of Ibramsa Rowther for valuable consideration without notice of any alleged Wakf. The suit properties had been held as private properties by the vendors' families for over 40 years. There was a suit filed in O.S.No.6/59 before the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, and in that suit the descendants of Ibramsa Rowther were allotted various shares over the suit properties in a decree passed in 1965 and the members of Ibramsa Rowther's family took possession of the respective shares allotted to them. In that suit, it was held that the suit properties and other properties claimed to be Wakf were not Wakf properties, but private properties of the members of Ibramsa Rowther's family. The present suits were barred by limitation and by adverse possession. Ibramsa Rowther had no right to execute any deed much less Wakf Settlement Deed in respect of the suit properties and other properties as he was doing business with his sons and the business was a joint business and Ibramsa Rowther had only a small share in the suit properties. The Settlement Deed by Ibramsa Rowther contained a number of void and unenforceable clauses. The suits deserved to be dismissed.