THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TIRUCHIRAPALLI Vs. THE PRINCE OF ARCOT ENDOWMMTS ESTATE, REPRESENTED BY AGENT JANAB ABDUB ABDUL HAMEED KHAN OF TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals which are filed by the State Government under S. 7, Madras Act XXX of 1956 raise the question whether the Villages of Sembankulam Chittanatham and Komagudi in Tiruchirapalli District are Inam Estates within the meaning of the Madras Estates Abolition Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1948). The three villages form part of the properties endowed for religious and charitable purposes, the supervision and control thereof being with the Prince of Arcot. The management is now regulated by the provisions of the Prince of Arcot Endowments Act, 1922 (Madras Act II of 1912). It is admitted that the right of the charity over the villages is only to receive melvaram from the ryots who have permanent occupancy rights with respect to their holdings. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that the entire income thus received have been exclusively utilised since the 18th century when the two mosques were built at Tiruchirapalli, for their upkeep. The mosques were originally in the nature of private chapels for the use of their founder, the Nawab of Carnatic; but later they were thrown open to the public. There is however no evidence of actual dedication of the villages to the mosques. But there is evidence of the uniform conduct of the successors of the founder of treating the properties as belonging to the mosques and utilising the entire income therefor. We can at least infer therefore that the income from the villages was given to the charity. It is an accepted principle in law that where there is no indication to the contrary, a gift of income from a property will be equivalent to a gift of the corpus itself. If, therefore, it were to be held that there was an appropriation of the entirety of the Income from the aforesaid villages exclusively for the benefit of the mosques, we can reasonably infer that the villages in question had been granted to the two mosques. If so much can be inferred, there is no further impediment in treating these villages as estates coming within the scope of S. 3(2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, as there is ample material on record to show that the British Government had recognised such a grant. This precise question came up for consideration in C.R.P. Nos. 177 to 193 of 1950 with respect to one of the villages now concerned - - Komagudi. Ramaswami, J. after an elaborate consideration of the relevant documents and authorities came to the conclusion that the village was an estate. Indeed, the position was conceded by the Prince of Arcot in his capacity as the Administrator of the endowments in regard to the Sembankulam village in an earlier case before this Court in S. A. Nos. 254 to 262 of 1947. After the passing of the Madras Act (XXVI of 1948) the Settlement officer took action suo motu, and pursuant to an enquiry, found that the villages of Chittanatham and Komagudi were Inam Estates; but that the village of Sembangulam was not. On appeal, however, the Tribunal held that none of the villages could be regarded as an Inam Estate as in its opinion there was not such a grant of the villages by the Nawab to the two mosques as to constitute a wakf under the Muslim Law. We now have to consider the correctness of that view.

(2.) That the villages originally constituted the properties over which the Nawab of Carnatic had absolute power of disposal (that is, over the melwaram) admits of no doubt. Sometime during the 18th century, the Nawab of Garnatic, Mahommed All Walajah, constructed two mosques at Tiruchirapalli and set apart the income from these villages for the upkeep of the mosques. No muttawali was however appointed. But that circumstance cannot make the dedication, if there was one, incomplete or ineffective. For, in such a case, the founder viz., the Nawab, should be regarded as the muttawalli. Under the Muslim Law a wakf means dedication by a person embracing the Muslim faith of any property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim Law as religious, pious or charitable. The dedication must be permanent and by the owner of the property who by reason of such dedication of the property should divest himself of such property and hand over the possession thereof to the muttawalli. Dealing with the subject of completion of a wakf, Mulla in his work on Mahomedan Law, states at page 170, Art. 186:

(3.) Again, at page 173, Art. 188, it is stated :