ZAFAR HASSAN KHAN Vs. HAJI MOHAMMAD ABDUL RAZZAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court-fee on the plaint filed by him in Title Suit No. 1 of 1969.

(2.) THE plaint which was filed on the 2nd Jan., 1969, valued the properties in suit at Rs. 50,005/-. In paragraph one of the plaint it was stated that the petitioner having obtained the permission of the Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis-e-Awqaf was suing as a representative of the Majlis. Along with the plaint the order of the Sadr of the Bihar Sunni Majlis-e-Awqaf permitting the petitioner to file a suit for the recovery of the lost Waqf property dedicated by Sakhawat Ali was also filed. THE matter as to whether the petitioner was bound to pay ad valorem court-fee in the suit was decided by the impugned order. THE learned Subordinate Judge in disagreement with the petitioner came to the conclusion that the words "on behalf of the Majlis" could not empower the petitioner to file a suit which fell within the purview of Section 69 A of the Bihar Waqfs Act. 1947. According to him the words "on behalf of the Majlis" occurring in Section 69-A meant by the Majlis or by an authority properly constituted under the Act, viz., the Sadr. To put it shortly, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the words "on behalf of" used in Section 69-A did not extend the benefits of that section to any person other than the Majlis or the Sadr of the Majlis. This finding of the learned Subordinate Judge does not seem to be correct.

(3.) THE finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that it is the Sadr only who has to be authorised by the Majlis for filing a suit for recovery of property wrongfully sold, is also wrong on another ground. As already stated, Section 27 of the Act deals with the powers and duties of the Majlis. Section 37 empowers the Sadr to take such steps as the Majlis is empowered to do in case of emergency. By virtue of Section 38 of the Act the Majlis may delegate all or any of its powers to the Sadr. In the case of Bashiruddin Ashraf v. Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis, 1965 BLJR 381 = (AIR 1965 SC 1206) their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the delegation of powers by the Majlis to the Sadr. held that as there was nothing to show that the powers of the Majlis were not delegated to the Sadr. it can be taken for granted that the powers of the Majlis had been delegated to the Sadr. In the instant case, the petitioner has been empowered by the Sadr to file the present suit. It can, therefore, be safely said that the suit out of which application arises was instituted on behalf of the Majlis and as such the petitioner was competent to file the suit on payment of the fixed court-fee of Rs. 15/- as envisaged by Sub-section (2) of Section 69-A of the Act.