NANHE SHAH Vs. ABDUL HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party applied to the District Judge of Patna alleging that he was the mutwalli of an ancient imambara in mauza Dujra and praying that the wakf estate might be "registered." The application purported to be under Clause 1 of Section 3, Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, which requires mutwallis to file the particulars set out in that sub-section. The applicant stated that the wakf had been created in the beginning of the last century and that the mutwalli was appointed by the Mahomedans of the locality at a meeting especially convened for that purpose. He alleged that the last mutwalli was one Amir Shah, who died in 1934, and that he himself had been appointed at a meeting especially convened by the Mahomedans of the locality.

(2.) The present petitioner, who is the son of Amir Shah, filed a petition stating that he was the present mutwalli of the wakf estate and not the opposite party. He claimed that the mutwalliship was hereditary and he prayed that the application of the opposite party should be rejected and that he himself should be permitted to file a petition for registration of the imambara as a wakf with the information required by Section 3 of the Act.

(3.) The Court below appears to have treated the matter as a contest between two rival claimants to the mutwalliship and, after framing issues appropriate to the determination of this question, decided that the opposite party is the properly elected mutwalli of the estate. The Court thereupon ordered that the disputed imambara should be registered as a public wakf of which the opposite party was the mutwalli. A perusal of the Act makes it quite dear that the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question which it has done. The Preamble to the Act states that the Act is one to make provision for the better management of wakf property and for ensuring the keeping and publication of proper accounts in respect of such properties. This object is to be achieved in the following manner: