FATHEUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Durgah and Mosque at Kovalan, Chingleput Taluk, was founded more than two hundred years ago, by one Fakir Mohamed Arab. It is under the administration of a Board of Trustees and management of the Durgah and the Mosque is governed by a scheme made in suit, O. S. No. 27 of 1940 of the court of the subordinate Judge of Chingleput. The founder had four sons and it is not in dispute that the representatives of those four branches have the right to perform the festivals at the Dargah and in particular the Urz festival during the one month of the Muslim year. It is not also in dispute that the turn-holder is entitled to appropriate to himself on behalf of his branch, all the offering collected during that month. In 1922, the first branch had no male heirs and other branches excluded any representation of the first branch from such rights as that branch had upto then been in enjoyment of. A female heir in the first branch, one Syed Unnissa, instituted a suit, claiming the right to succeed to the rights of the first branch. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and her right was recognised. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of this judgment of the Supreme Court, the first branch enjoyed the rights in the year 1964.

(2.) A representative of the second branch filed an application before the State wakf Board objecting to an order made by that Board allotting the representative of the first branch the performance of the Urz in 1964. This person sought for a review of that order, but that application was finally withdrawn. The State Wakf board however made an order that the fourth branch should perform the Urz festival in 1964-65. It is this order of the Board that is attacked in this writ petition, it being claimed that the Board acted without jurisdiction. The short question is that the arrangement among the heirs of the founder is purely internal arrangement in the exercise of their civil rights and the State Wakf Board, though it has undoubted authority to see to the proper administration of the Wakf, is not entitled to interfere in a matter of this kind.

(3.) AFTER the petition was heard in part, the State Wakf Board, through its learned counsel, represented that it was not interested in a matter in which the private rights of the parties were concerned. So long as the administration of the Wakf was not affected by any internal dispute of this kind. The Wakf Board was willing that the matter should be adjusted among the representatives of the four branches.