IRFANA BEGUM Vs. MOHAMED AZAM PAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1(a) CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 has been directed (by the 1st defendant) against the Judgment in O.S.No,3329 of 1990 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Tribunal). 1(b) CRP.NPD.No,2155 has been directed (by D3 in O.S.No,3329 of 1990) against the Judgment in O.S.No,3329 of 1990 on the file of the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Tribunal under the Wakf Act). 1(c) CRP.NPD.No,2384 of 2001 was preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No,5699 of 1992 against the Judgment in O.S.No,5699 of 1992 on the file of the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai(Special Tribunal under the Wakf Act). 1(d) CRP.NPD.No.1961 of 2001 was preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No,8039 of 1998, who is also D1 in O.S.No,3329 of 1990, against the Judgment in O.S.No,8039 of 1989 on the file of the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Tribunal under the Wakf Act). 1(e) CRP.PD.No,77 of 2004 was preferred against the order in M.P.No,527 of 1995 in RCA.No.512 of 1994 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority). This CRP has been preferred by the tenant against the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No,2155 of 2001 / D3 in O.S.No,3329 of 1990.

(2.) CRP.NPD.No.1961 of 2001:-

(3.) CRP.NPD.No,2384 of 2001 - O.S.No,5699 of 1992. CRP.NPD.No,2384 of 2001 has been directed against O.S.No,5699 of 1992 by the plaintiff in that suit, who is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No,3329 of 1990. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib and during his life time he created a Wakf-Alal-Aulad on 28.07.1983 appointing himself as the first Mutawalli. While so he executed a deed of nomination dated 28.02.1985 appointing the plaintiffs as the Mutawallies and the Beneficiaries of the property. Dr.Mohamed Ismail got married to the second defendant. Once a wakf is created he cannot revoke or cancel. Dr.Mohamed Ismail during his old age was under the control and influence of the second defendant and by practicing undue influence force and coercion she obtained certain documents in her favour thereby cancelling the appointment of earlier Mutawallis including the plaintiffs and got appointed hereself as the successor Mutawalli. The said documents are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The second defendant became disqualified to act as Mutawalli in view of her conduct in mortgaging the Wakf property and subsequently obtaining the loan thereunder. The second defendant with a view to grab the property got documents executed in her favour and even went to the extent of obtaining documents cancelling the Wakf. Proceedings were initiated in the wakf board to declare the second defendant as the Mutawalli and the plaintiffs also filed the petition to frame scheme for the suit property. The wakf board erroneously permitted the second defendant to continue as Mutawalli. The second defendant was not functioning as Mutawalli at any point of time and she has never been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The wakf board has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the second defendant. Wakf board has no authority to permit the second defendant to act as Mutawalli. The second defendant has been divorced by Dr.Mohamed Ismail. The Wakf Board failed to give opportunities to the plaintiffs to contest the proceedings. The Wakf Board conducted the enquiry without observing the principles of natural justice. The plaintiffs are the joint Mutawallis and are managing the suit Wakf and its property. The plaintiffs have been collecting rent from the tenants and paying taxes and maintaining the property. The defendants are not entitled to interfere with the right of the plaintiffs in managing the properties. Hence, the suit.