MOINUDEEN SHERIFF Vs. MUKRAM SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Satish parasaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.M.Vijayan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first respondent, Mr.R.Achuthan, the learned counsel appearing for the second and fourth respondents, Mr.Siraj & Siraj, the learned counsels appearing for the sixth respondent and Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the seventh and eighth respondents.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that a saint by name Syed Gulam Dastagir, popularly known as Motibaba, was entombed in a portion of the land bearing door No.422, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai, with an extent of 28 grounds of land. The said saint had died in the year, 1959, and a Durgah has been built over his mortal remains.

(3.) IT is further stated that H.A.G.Dastagir Sheriff had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, H.A.G.Dastagir Sheriff had died, on 4.12.1999. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the legal representatives of the H.A.G.Dastagir Sheriff were impleaded in C.A.No.977 of 1998. IT was contended by the impleaded legal representatives that H.A.G.Dastagir Sheriff had executed a deed of Wakf nama, on 30.5.1998, stating that his five sons will be joint Muthavallis of the Durgah and one of them will elect as the Managing Muthavalli of the Durgah. By an order, dated 19.7.2001, the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss C.A.No.977 of 1998, affirming the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.289 of 1988. Thereafter, A.Mohamed Sheriff had expired on 22.8.2001 and the petitioner had succeeded to the office of the joint Muthavalliship of the Durgah, along with the first respondent herein. Thus, the eldest son of the deceased joint Muthavallis succeeded to the office of the joint Muthavalliship of the Durgah. The sixth respondent herein by its proceedings No.Rc.5024/86/C2/Chen, dated 30.1.2002, had recognised the petitioner and the first respondent as the joint Muthavallis of the Durgah. However, the first respondent had excluded the petitioner from the administration of the Wakf with a deliberate attempt to retain himself as a sole Muthavalli of the Durgah. Thereafter, various proceedings were initiated before the Courts of law with regard to the dispute that arose relating to the administration of the Durgah. While so, the respondents 2 to 4 had filed a representation before the seventh respondent claiming that they also have a right to be recognised as a Muthavalli, along with the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 5 herein. In the said representation, the respondents 2 to 4 have alleged that their rights have been recoginsed by an order of the Wakf Board, dated 23.8.2001.