S.Shanmugam v. R.Dhanraj
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the plaintiff, holding a lease granted in 1988, was entitled to possession. The amendment in Section 56 of the Waqf Act was held to have no retrospective effect, and the defendants failed to prove valid attornment to the Trust.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.06.2019 PRONOUNCED ON: 27.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A. No. 683 of 2019
and CMP No.12839 of 2019
S.Shanmugam .. Appellant / 9th Defendant
Vs.
- R.Dhanraj .. Respondent / Plaintiff
- Subramanian (Deceased)
- Saroja balu (Deceased)
- Ashokan
- (Set ex parte in the suit on 18.09.2003)
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lease deed executed in 1988 is valid despite the restrictions introduced in Section 56 of the Waqf Act in 2013.
Whether the defendants have established attornment to the trustee after learning the true ownership of the suit property.
Whether a substantial question of law arises from the concurrent finding that the plaintiff had constructive attornment from his father.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
S. Shanmugam
- respondent
R. Dhanraj
- respondent
The Tamilnadu Waqf Board
- respondent
The Executive Officer, Aga Mohidden Mosque
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court