Partly allowed

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Ahamed Baig Sahib

Madras HC2 Jan 2020CRP(MD)/1357/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court revised a Wakf Tribunal order regarding religious rituals at Begampur Pallivasal Darga Trust. Recognizing the descendants' right but prioritizing coordinated management, the court modified the injunction to vest ritual performance in two specific nominees from the family on the Wakf Board committee.

What did the court decide?

The permanent injunction by the Wakf Tribunal was modified; religious rituals are to be performed by the two nominees of the Wakf Board from the Hugdhars family on the committee.

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs Ahamed Baig… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009,

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.01.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.1357 of 2009 & 70 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009, C.M.P.(MD)Nos.10628 to 10630 of 2018

¶5

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1357 of 2009

¶6

1.Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Represented by its Secretary /Chief Executive Officer, Post Box No.6161, Santhome High Road, Chennai, Now at No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakadi Nagar, Chennai – 01.

¶7

2.The Wakf Superintendent Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Ground Floor, Pallivasal, No.1, Town Hall Road, Madurai Town.

¶8

... Revision Petitioners/ Respondents 6&7 Vs.

1.Ahamed Baig Sahib

2.Saleem Baig Sahib

3.Samel Baig Sahib

4.Guddu Hussian

5.N.Ameerjan

6.Umar Sha

7.Bava Bugardeen

8.M.Kaja Mohideen 9.M.Abdul Kareem ... Respondents /Petitioners

¶17

(Respondents 5 to 9 may be given up)

¶18

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.70 of 2012

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.Ahamed Baig Sahib

¶20

1/6

¶21

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009,

¶22

2.Saleem Baig Sahib

¶23

3.Samel Baig Sahib

¶24

4.Guddu Hussian .. Revision Petitioners/Petitioners

¶25

Vs. 1.N.Ameerjan 2.Umar Sha 3.Bava Bugardeen 4.M.Kaja Mohideen 5.M.Abdul Kareem 6.Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Represented by its Secretary /Chief Executive Officer, Post Box No.6161, Santhome High Road, Chennai, Now at No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakadi Nagar, Chennai – 01.

¶26

7.The Wakf Superintendent Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Ground Floor, Pallivasal, No.1, Town Hall Road, Madurai Town. .. Respondents/Respondents

¶27

COMMON PRAYER : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 08.06.2009 made in W.O.P.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal / Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul.

¶28

For Petitioners in CRP(MD)No.70 of 2012 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan For Petitioners in CRP(MD)No.1357 of 2009 : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen For R-1 to R-4 in CRP(MD)No.1357 of 2009 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan For R-5 to R9 in CRP(MD)No.1357 of 2009 : Given up For R-2 & R-5 in CRP(MD)No.70 of 2012 : died For R-1, R-3 & R-4 in CRP(MD)No.70 of 2012 : No Appearance

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

2/6

¶31

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009,

¶32

For R-6 & R7 in CRP(MD)No.70 of 2012

¶33

: Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

These two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order of the Wakf Tribunal, Dindigul made in W.O.P.No.2 of 2008. The petitioners in W.O.P.No.2 of 2008 sought for various reliefs regarding the management of the Begampur Pallivasal Darga Trust.

¶36

2.In the said Wakf Original Petition, the following prayers were sought:

¶37

“(i) declaring that the suit property belongs to the Durga

¶38

(ii) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in anyway alienating the suit properties till the disposal of the suit.

¶39

(iii) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from appointing any person for the services to the religious institution of the Durga and Mosque.

¶40

(iv) to render the true and proper accounts from 1957 to till this date.

¶41

(v) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the suit; and

¶42

(vi) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.”

¶43

The claims were resisted by the respondents as well as the Wakf Board. The Wakf Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled only to the relief of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the performance of religious rituals by the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba. The claim of the petitioners that they are the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba was not denied by any one of the contesting respondents.

¶44

The Wakf Tribunal has also found that the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba have been performing the religious rituals in the Pallivasal. The petitioners have come up with the Civil Revision Petition in CRP(MD) No.70 of 2012 against the rejection of the other prayers. While the Wakf Board has come up https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with CRP(MD)No.1357 of 2009 challenging the injunction granted

¶45

3/6

¶46

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009,

¶47

restraining the Wakf Board from interfering with the rights of the petitioners namely, the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba from performing the religious rituals in the Pallivasal.

¶48

I have heard Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP(MD) No.70 of 2012 and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Counsel appearing for the Wakf in CRP(MD) No.1357 of 2009.

¶49

While Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the performance of religious rituals in the Pallivasal has always been done by descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba and the Trial Court has on appreciation of evidence on record, concluded that it is the descendants who are entitled to perform the religious rituals in the Pallivasal.

¶50

Contending contra Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Counsel appearing for the Wakf Board would submit that as per the Scheme Decree, the Wakf Board is entitled to appoint a management committee, in which, there are two persons representing the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba and three persons representing the other Jamatdhars of Begampur Pallivasal area. Therefore, according to him, the management of Darga as well as the Pallivasal would vest with the committee and it is for the said committee to perform the religious rituals and functions. The order of the Wakf Tribunal clearly shows that the religious rituals like reciting of quran, lighting of lamp, reciting of fathiya, Kanthoori festival have been done only by the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba. The said right has also been recognized by the Courts in the earlier proceedings.

¶51

Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Counsel for the Wakf Board, would contend that there are two representatives of the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba on the committee which is constituted by the Wakf Board for management and they can perform the religious rituals. He would further submit that the period of the committee is only for five years and once a new committee is constituted, some other persons from among the descendants of the founder would be appointed and there will be a dispute between the descendants in the performance of the religious rituals. The learned Counsel would also make it clear that the Wakf Board's mission is only to see that there is a proper management of Wakf and performance of all the required religious rituals in the Pallivasal.

¶52

On consideration of the above contentions, I am of the considered opinion that while recognizing the right of the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba to perform the religious https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rituals in the Pallivasal, it will be in the interest of both the

¶53

4/6

¶54

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009,

¶55

parties to leave it to the two nominees of the Wakf Board on the managing committee, who admittedly would belong to the family of the descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba to perform the religious rituals. Such arrangement would avoid future conflicts on the right of the individuals to perform the religious rituals. Hence, the permanent injunction granted by the Wakf Tribunal is modified to the limited extent as follows :

¶56

The right to perform the religious rituals in the Pallivasal would be exercised by the two representatives of the Hugdhars family (descendants of Hamirunisha Begum Sahiba) nominated by the Wakf Board to be on the committee to the management appointed as per the Scheme Decree in O.S.No.49 of 1914.

¶57

Needless to say that it will be open to the two persons, to authorise other members of the family to perform the day-to-day rituals.

¶58

If for any reason, the Wakf Board fails to constitute the committee in time and there is a vacuum, the members of the earlier committee belonging to Hugdhars family will continue to perform the religious rituals till such time, a new committee is constituted by the Wakf Board. It is made clear that once a new committee is constituted by the Wakf Board, the persons who are performing the religious rituals on behalf of the family shall have no right to continue. It is also made clear that the rights conferred under this order will only in respect of performing the religious rituals and not in the management of the Wakf Board.

¶59

With the above modification, the order of the Wakf Tribunal is confirmed.

¶60

10.With the above observations, these two Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

¶61

// True Copy //

¶62

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶63

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶64

5/6

¶65

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009,

¶66

¶67

¶68

The Wakf Tribunal / Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul

¶69

+2 CC to MR.T.S.MOHAMED MOHIDEEN, Advocate ( SR-209,239[F] dated 03/01/2020 )

¶70

+1 CC to MR.V.R.VENKATESAN, Advocate ( SR-354[F] dated 06/01/2020 )

¶71

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.1357 of 2009

¶72

& 70 of 2012 02.01.2020 (3/3)

¶73

KM/(21.01.2020) 6P 5C

¶74

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶75

6/6

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Ahamed Baig Sahib

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Ahamed Baig Sahib

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subbiah Vs Antoniyammal

Y.Shahul Hameed,(Staff No.A31528) Vs Dr.J.Radhakrishnan,Principal Secretary to Govt.

Pari Ramaiah, Vs R.Tholgappian

D.Sesu, Vs M.Sundaramoorthy

Visali Alias Ramya Vs Rajaram

Valarmathi Vs Manokaran