SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. FARID UDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decree of the lower Court granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are 12 persons, residents of Patehpur Sikri in Agra District, who brought a suit in that capacity against defendant 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, and defendant 2, the Notified Area Committee, Patehpur Sikri. Para. 1 of the plaint set out that during the Moghul period the dargah of Hazrat Salim Chishti was erected and the revenue of a number of villages was assigned as an endowment for the dargah and the descendants and adherents of the Saint, who were the ancestors of the plaintiffs, and that portion of Mauza Sikri, situated within the walls of Patehpur Sikri, was also given into possession of the descendants and adherents of the Saint and the dargah as their muafi land together with all the appurtenant rights thereto. Para. 2 set out that the Sajjadanashin as superintendent on behalf of the dargah was in possession until the death of one Sajjadanashin called Sheikh Ali Ahmad, and that after that the family divided into two parties, one under the headship of Kazim Ali and the other under the headship of Shah Fazl-ud-din Husain, Although the plaint does not mention in it we may state that the plaintiffs are descended through a female as admitted by P.W. Ahmad Ullah on p. 25 line 12 and that it is the family of the descendants in the male line who have a monopoly of the office of Sajjadanashin.

(2.) The plaint proceeds to state that the abadi of Patehpur Sikri remained in possession of the Dargah Committee since its establishment, and in para. 2-A certain particulars from the settlement of the year 1840 are set out for the village Mauza Sikri, and reliance is placed on the-entry of Mauza Arazi Imlak. The Dargah Committee is also referred to in para. 2-C and 2-G and para. 3. The cause of action, is set out in para. 7 that the Notified Area Committee has issued notices demanding rents from the plaintiffs and from their tenants and that the plaintiffs assert that the Notified Area Committee has no right to claim any rents from the plaintiffs or from their tenants, with respect to areas coloured green from plaintiffs 11 and 12, and coloured red from plaintiffs 1 to 10, and coloured black from plaintiff 10. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration of their proprietary rights to the lands shown in the map according to these colours, and that the defendants 1 and 2 have no proprietary rights in the said lands or to demand rents from the tenants of those lands. The written statement filed on behalf of the Secretary of State admitted that portion of Mauza Sikri formed part of the assigned properties, but it was not admitted that any land was given into-possession of the descendants and adherents of the Saint as muafi, and it was alleged that the assigned properties were under the management of the Sajjadanashins, and also that the income of the properties was applied by the Sajjadanashins for the upkeep and repairs of the buildings, for the maintenance and support of the descendants of the Saint and for the religious ceremony connected with the-dargah. In para. 19 it was pleaded that the plaintiffs ancestors were tenants of the village and their possession was merely that of ryots and that they had no adverse possession against defendants.

(3.) Further statements were made by the parties and Mohammad Wali-ud-din Chishti, the leading plaintiff, stated that the plaintiffs were owners of the land in suit ever since the time of Akbar and that the land was not endowed to the tomb but to the family personally and that the land endowed to the tomb was in possession of the Dargah Committee and that the sanad on which he relied distinguishes between the two endowments. We may at once refer to this sanad. This sanad is a document printed at p. 45 and it is merely a copy which has been produced. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two reports were made to the police to the effect that the original was lost. These reports however were made one on 9th March 1930 and one a few days later, whereas notice had been served on some of the plaintiffs for collection of rents on 17 September 1928. Therefore it was after the plaintiffs were aware that this claim was being made by the Notified Area that the reports in question were made and the circumstance is undoubtedly suspicious. The only sanad on which the plaintiffs rely is a copy of a sanad purporting to have been issued by the Maharaja Madho Rao Scindhia of Gwalior. This is a private copy made by one of the plaintiffs. The copy is not very clear but it apparently consists of two parts, the second part being an application made to the Maharaja for a parwana. This is on the back of the paper. On the face of the paper is what purports to be an order. This order sets out as follows: For the purpose of rendering the services relating to the tauliat, villages Madhu etc., in the pargana aforesaid, the milak lands within the city and outside have from olden days been granted and entrusted to the Sajjadanashin, named Sheikh Ali Ahmad Saheb of Dargah Hazrat Sheikh Salim Chishti (may peace be on him) and they have always been in his possession and occupation. Now also it has been allowed to remain as usual by order of the Sarkar. It is hereby ordered that the villages etc., be released for good, aB it has usually been, in favour of the said Sajjadanashin. They should not, in any way, interfere in it and should note it as an important order. Dated 12 Jamadiussani san 27, Julus.