Sanjay Jalan Vs The Ameerunnisa begum Sahibs Endowments and another

¶1

1/46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

OA NO. 88 OF 2020,A NO. 1702 OF 2021,OA NO. 87 OF 2020,A NO. 535 OF 2020,A NO. 534 OF 2020,OA NO. 121 OF 2020,A NO. 820 OF 2020,OA NO. 120 OF 2020,A NO. 821 OF 2020,OA NO. 51 OF 2020,A NO. 343 OF 2020,A NO. 1701 OF 2021,A NO. 2227 OF 2021,OA NO. 52 OF 2020,A NO. 348 OF 2020,A NO. 349 OF 2020, O.A.NO.385 OF 2021 in C.S.No.196 of 1913

¶7

A No. 535 of 2020

¶8

Sanjay Jalan S/o.Mr.R.K.Jalan residing at No.73 and 75 Dr.R.K.Salai Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶9

Applicant(s)

¶10

Vs

¶11

The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶12

2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

2/46

¶15

Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

A No. 534 of 2020 1. Inder Kumar Fomra 2.Surendra Kumar Fomra Applicant(s) Vs 1. The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments and another represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004. Respondent(s) A No. 820 of 2020 1. Mrs.Kollipara Ranganayaki 2.Mrs.Chandrakala Prabhakar Applicant(s) Vs 1. The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments and another represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having registered

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

3/46

¶20

office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶21

2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore chennai 600 004. Respondent(s) A No. 821 of 2020 1. Mr.H.E.Abdul Azeez 2.Mrs.Atheeq ur Rehman 3.Mr.Hajra Azeez Applicant(s) Vs 1. The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments and another represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore chennai 600 004. Respondent(s) A No. 343 of 2020 B.Sathyanarayanan

¶22

Applicant(s)

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

4/46

¶25

Vs

¶26

The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's endowments and another Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, chennai 600 005.

¶27

2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶28

Respondent(s)

¶29

A No. 2227 of 2021

¶30

Mr.Sakina Mansoor W/o.Mr.M.Mansoor, No.200, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶31

Applicant(s)

¶32

Vs

¶33

The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments and another Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman, having its registered office at No.165/76, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶34

2.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Waqf House, 1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seetha Kathi Nagar, Chennai 600 001 Represented by its (a) Special officer and (b) CEO.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

5/46

¶37

Respondent(s)

¶38

A No. 348 of 2020

¶39

1. M/s.P.Shikhermal Surana

¶40

2.Mrs.Leelavathi Surana

3.Dr.Vinod Surana

4.Mrs.Rashmi Surana

Applicant(s)

Vs

The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶46

2.The Tamilnadu Waqf Board Waqf House 1 Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seetha Kathi Nagar, Chennai 600 001 Represented by its Special Officer and CEO.

¶47

Respondent(s)

¶48

A No. 535 of 2020

¶49

PRAYER Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 151 CPC to direct the respondents herein to renew the lease in respect of the property comprised in Old Survey No.2826 R.S.No.1707 part bearing Door Nos.43 and 44 and New Door Nos.73 and 75, Dr.R.K.Salai Mylapore chennai 600 004 measuring 2 Grounds 1682 sq.ft for a period of 30 years or any other period which this court deems appropriate at an appropriate rent for the land.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

6/46

¶52

A No. 534 of 2020

¶53

PRAYER : Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 151 CPC to direct the respondents herein to renew the lease in respect of the property comprised in Old Survey No.2826 R.S.No.1707 part bearing door No.39 New Door Nos.65 Dr.R.K.Salai Mylapore chennai 600 004 being a strip of land measuring an extent of 840 sq.ft for a period of 30 years or any other period which this court deems appropriate at an appropriate rent for the land.

¶54

A No. 820 of 2020

¶55

PRAYER: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 151 CPC to direct the Respondents herein to renew the lease in respect of the property measuring an extent of about 3 Grounds or thereabouts of land belonging to the 1st respondent comprised in R.S.NO.1707 part bearing Old Door No.1/15 having present Door No.42/71 Dr.R.K.Salai, Mylapore chennai 600 004 for a period of 30 Years or any other period which this High Court deems appropriate at an appropriate rent per month for the land.

¶56

A No. 821 of 2020

¶57

PRAYER: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 151 CPC to direct the Respondents herein to renew the lease in respect of the property measuring an extent of about 3 Grounds or thereabouts of land belonging to the 1st respondent measuring an extent of 9.28 Grounds comprised in Survey No.2826 R.S.No.1707 part bearing New Door Nos.91, 93 and 95 bearing Old Door Nos.51 52 and 53 New Door Nos.91, 93 and 95, Dr.R.K.Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 for a period of 30 years or any other period which this High Court deems appropriate at an appropriate rent per month for the land.

¶58

A No. 343 of 2020

¶59

PRAYER: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 151 CPC to direct the respondents herein to renew the lease in respect

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

7/46

¶62

of the property measuring an extent of about 4.22 Grounds or thereabouts of land belonging to the 1st respondent comprised in Old. Survey No.2826 in R.S.NO.1707 part bearing Old Door NO.36 New NO.200/1 Royapettah High Road, Thiru Vi Ka Salai Mylapore Chennai 600 004 for a period of 30 years or any other period which this High Court.

¶63

A No. 2227 of 2021

¶64

PRAYER : Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 151 CPC to direct the Respondents to execute in favour of the Applicants herein a one time renewal of the Lease for the schedule mentioned land for 30 years (01/02/2020 to 01/02/2050) on new enhanced rent, rental deposit and all other terms as per the Waqf Properties lease Rules but without inviting any public bidding.

¶65

A No. 348 of 2020

¶66

PRAYER Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 151 CPC to direct the Respondents to execute in favour of the Applicants herein a one time renewal of the lease for the schedule mentioned land for 30 years 01/02/2020 to 01/02/2050 on new enhanced rent, rental deposit and all other terms as per the Waqf Properties Lease Rules but without inviting any public bidding.

¶67

*A.Nos.*	*For Applicant(s)*	*For Respondent(s)*
535 of 2020	Mr.V.Ramesh, for	Mr.N.A.Nissar
	Mr.T.Thiyagarajan	Ahmed, Senior Counsel for D1, Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for D2
534 of 2020	Mr.V.Ramesh, for Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
820 of 2020	Mr.V.Ramesh, for	Mr.N.A.Nissar
	Mr.T.Thiyagarajan	Ahmed, Senior Counsel for D1,

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

8/46

¶70

*A.Nos.*	*For Applicant(s)*	*For Respondent(s)*
		Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for D2
821 of 2020	Mr.V.Kuberan for M/s.Rank Associates
343 of 2020	Mr.V.Ramesh, for Mr.T.Thiyagarajan	Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, Senior Counsel for D1, Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for D2
2227 of 2021	Mr.P.S.Surana for Ms.P.R.Vandana	Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, Senior Counsel for D1, Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for D2
348 of 2020	Mr.G.Kalyan Jhabakh	Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, Senior Counsel for D1, Mr.Avinash
		Wadhwani for D2

¶71

COMMON ORDER

¶72

All these applications have been filed seeking a direction against the

¶73

respondents, the Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments at Bharathi Salai,

¶74

Triplicane, Chennai – 5 and the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, at Chennai, to renew the lease in respect of the portions of the property over which the

¶75

respective petitioners are now in possession. They have categorised themselves

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

9/46

¶78

as lawful lessees over the respective portions of the property at Old No.39, New

¶79

No.65, Dr.R.K.Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.

¶80

2.In each one of the applications, in the Judges Summon, the specific

¶81

portion under which that particular applicant is in possession has been given.

¶82

Since the issues raised by all the learned counsels for the petitioners and by the

¶83

learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent in all applications overlap and are

¶84

similar, all the applications are taken up for consideration and a common order is passed.

¶85

3.Let me take as an illustration, the affidavit filed in support of the

¶86

Judges Summon in A.No.343 of 2020.

¶87

4.This application has been filed by B.Sathyanarayanan, who claimed in

¶88

his affidavit that he is a lessee of vacant land of 4.22 grounds or thereabouts and

¶89

had been gracious enough to acknowledge that the said land belongs to the first

¶90

respondent/the Ameerunnisa Begum Sahib's Endowments. He has further

¶91

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶92

10/46

¶93

claimed that his right to the vacant land is covered by a lease deed dated

¶94

01.01.2014 executed by the trustees of the first respondent. He had further stated in his affidavit that the first respondent is an Endowment formed prior to 1913 through a Will and is covered by a Scheme Decree in C.S.No.196 of 2013, wherein by orders dated 12.12.1921 and 01.02.1992, permission had been granted to the first respondent to let out on lease the vacant land to third parties.

¶95

It had been contended that the earliest lease was on 01.04.1922 for an extent of 04 grounds and 2037 sq.ft. for a period of 49 years in favour of the lessee in that case.

¶96

5.It had been very freely admitted that the original lessees had been freely

¶97

transferring their lease hold right in respect of the land and also their absolute right in respect of the superstructure they had put up over the land. It must also be pointed out that during the course of discussions, the learned counsel also stated that some of the original superstructure had been subsequently demolished and reconstructed and in one case, the building is quite expansive consisting of a basement and eight floors. It had been contended by the applicant that the transfer of the superstructure, which is termed as sale of the

¶98

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶99

11/46

¶100

superstructure had also been recognised by the first respondent. It had also been stated that on such transfer, the subsequent lessee had also been recognised as a lessee of the land of the first respondent. It had been stated that owing to passage of time, the lessee continued to be in occupation, putting up construction. Thereafter, owing to various issues surrounding the lease, they had filed A.No.801 of 1962 and the Court had also permitted the first respondent to renew the lease to the predecessor in title of the applicant. The lease had been renewed for 36 years upto 2007 and it had been further contended that there was an option given for a further renewal of 13 years which would extend upto the period of 2020 in some cases, owing to an additional renewal for a further period of 13 years. This fact had been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants that therefore, the lease is technically still in subsistence and the applicants have a right to occupy the superstructure, which in effect would give the right to continue to occupy the land, on which the superstructure had been built, and for which initially the lease had been granted.

¶101

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶102

12/46

¶103

6.The applicants had taken umbrage to a letter issued by the first

¶104

respondent dated 02.01.2013, wherein, the first respondent had stated that there

¶105

would not be any extension of lease. The first respondent drew reference to the

¶106

Waqf Act, 1995 and the amendment to the Act in the year 2013. The issuance of the said letter had led to the filing of these applications seeking renewal of the lease and calling upon the Court to interfere and prevail upon the lessor/the first respondent to extend the lease of the land and incidentally, recognise the superstructure built by the applicants and grant further extension atleast till 2033 in a few cases. Quite fortunately, they have not sought the Court to be substituted as the lessor in the instant cases.

¶107

7.Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the applicants took the Court through

¶108

the various documents which governed the lease. The first document is an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court (C.V.Kumaraswami Sastri.J) in C.S.No.196 of 1913 dated 10.04.1922, wherein, the learned Judge had framed a Scheme for the first respondent, the relevant portions of which this Court had been drawn attention to. The said Scheme provided for the execution of a

¶109

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶110

13/46

¶111

General Power of Attorney to be registered in favour of the President of the first respondent for the purpose of conducting suits, getting monies from the Courts and incidentally also for registering leases. It had been further pointed out that

¶112

a Register shall be maintained by the Secretary, which also includes Registers relating to the suits, decrees, legal papers and their particulars, and it could be presumed to also include details about the leases granted and the terms of the lease.

¶113

8.Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel argued that this Scheme framed by the

¶114

learned Single Judge on 10.04.1922 cannot been altered, modified or set aside.

¶115

9.Thereafter, an order came to be passed on 11.04.1962 again by a learned

¶116

Single Judge of this Court (P.S.Kailasam,J.) (as his Lordship then was) in A.No.801 of 1962. That application had been filed seeking permission to the applicants therein to enter into a renewal of lease deed for the period ending 01.02.2007 with liberty for further extension for 13 years from 2007. The lease amount had been stated. The learned Single Judge in the course of his order granted permission for entering into renewal of the lease till 01.02.2007 with

¶117

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶118

14/46

¶119

further extension for 13 years from February 2007. The names of the original lessees had also been given in the schedule to the order. There were four separate lessees, namely, Kanakarathnammal, V.Shivshankar Rao, K.V.Srinivasan and K.G.Janaki Bai. The lease amount which they had paid and

¶120

the revised monthly lease amount also had been specified. The area under

¶121

which they have occupied was also specified in the said schedule.

¶122

10.It is not in dispute that the lessees put up superstructures over the land

¶123

for which they had been granted lease. Having put up superstructures, they then

¶124

took up on themselves to deal with the said superstructure. They executed sale

¶125

deeds. One such sale deed dated 07.10.1984 had been brought to my notice, executed by Kanakarathnammal, one of the original lessees and her son and probably her daughters to T.Balakrishnan. By this sale deed, the superstructure

¶126

of the residential building at Dr.R.K.Salai, Mylapore, which had been described

¶127

in the schedule thereto, which originally belonged to Kanakarathnammal, had been conveyed to the purchaser. The total area was 5 grounds and 2021 and 5/8

¶128

sq.ft. of land.

¶129

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶130

15/46

¶131

11.This transaction, taken as an illustration, would only imply that the

¶132

original lessees had thereafter transferred their rights which had been initially granted to them, not only of the land to which they were lessees, but also of the superstructures which they had built. Once the superstructure had been transferred absolutely, the purchasers had every right to dealt with the superstructure in the manner they thought would be profitable to them, including taking a decision to demolish the existing superstructure and reconstructing the superstructure.

¶133

12.Thereafter the assignment of the lease hold rights to T.Balakrishnan consequent of the execution of the sale deed was granted by document dated 01.11.1988 called the Document of Indenture and executed by the trustees of the first respondent Trust recognising the sale of superstructure in favour of T.Balakrishnan.

¶134

13.The lessors as Trustees of the first respondent Trust had taken a decision to permit even future developments of the property. They had stated

¶135

that improvements could be effected for the better enjoyment of the property.

¶136

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶137

16/46

¶138

They had also granted extension of the lease, which according to them, at that

¶139

point of time, was beneficial to the Trust. They had also stated at that the said extension could be for a period of 13 years from 2007 till 1st February 2020.

¶140

There was a further clause for renewal of the lease and the lessee was also granted liberty to put up further substantial or permanent building or buildings either for residential or for any other purpose.

¶141

14.It is thus the seen that Trustees who were in charge on 01.11.1988 had practically abandoned the first respondent Trust and had sold all the rights which they could have retained to the lessees or the purchaser. They however retained their categorization as lessors of the land. It is a moot question whether they had gone beyond the Scheme which was framed by the learned Single Judge or had taken advantage of the Scheme and had frittered away the valuable properties of the first respondent.

¶142

15.The lessees continue to enjoy and transfer their rights. They also proceeded to sub let portions of built areas and to make profits out of the constructed portions. Their profits naturally far exceeded the lease amount

¶143

which they paid to the first respondent for the lease of the land.

¶144

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶145

17/46

¶146

16.In the midst of all this, the Waqf Act 1995 came into effect and

¶147

thereafter, there an amendment was introduced in the year 2013 and the Rules to the said amendment were introduced in the year 2014.

¶148

17.On 01.08.2019, fortunately, sense prevailed upon the Trustees or those

¶149

who were in the management of the first respondent Trust. They issued a letter to the applicant in A.No.343 of 2020, B.Satyanarayanan, who is the son of

¶150

T.Balakrishnan, pointing out that he had been a tenant under the Endowment with respect to land measuring 4.22 grounds equivalent to 10,128 square feet, at Old door No.36, New D.No.200/1, Royapettah High Road, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Salai, Mylapore, Chennai on a monthly rent of Rs.1,38,000/- together with GST on the rent at 18% per annum and that he had also built a superstructure and which had

¶151

been let out to various tenants and that he was enjoying the rental benefits. By the said letter, they stated that in accordance with the agreement entered into

¶152

with him, on 01.01.2014, the lease was to expire on 01.02.2020 and that he had

¶153

agreed to surrender the building on expiry of the lease on 01.02.2020. It had been stated that though there was a provision to pay compensation for the

¶154

building, an interpretation was drawn that under Waqf Act 2013, there was a

¶155

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶156

18/46

¶157

restriction to payment of compensation for the building. It had been further

¶158

stated that the land belongs to a charitable institution, which fact, the signatory finally woke up to understand after nearly about 100 years from the date on

¶159

which the scheme was initially framed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and therefore, surrender of the property on or before 01.04.2020 was requested.

¶160

This communication had led to the filing of these applications seeking renewal of lease.

¶161

18.There is one more aspect which has to be pointed out and that is, in the

¶162

assignment of the lease hold rights which had been granted by the erstwhile Trustees on 01.11.1988 reference to which document had been made supra,

¶163

there was also a commitment that compensation would be paid to the value of

¶164

the building and that the value of the building would be settled by two Arbitrators, one to be selected by the lessor and the other to be selected by the lessee and in case the Arbitrators differ on the value, to be further settled by an

¶165

Umpire, to be selected by the two Arbitrators.

¶166

19.Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel argued stated that there should be

¶167

renewal of the lease and definitely, there should be payment of compensation

¶168

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶169

19/46

¶170

for the value of the building which had been put up by the applicants herein.

¶171

With respect to a particular building which had been put up and for which mention had been made earlier about consisting of basement and eight floors, Mr.V.Kuberan pointed out that efforts were taken to settle the issue through a Mediator and a former Judge of the Supreme Court had been appointed as Mediator to value the building. I am informed that a conservative value of about Rs.11.65 crores has been determined as the value of the building after providing for depreciation.

¶172

20.It has now probably crept in the mind of the Trustees of the first respondent Trust that they would go bankrupt if they were to pay compensation

¶173

to those who had put up construction and to those who have been permitted to put up construction.

¶174

21.It is hoped that some sense and sensibility would prevail in the minds

¶175

of the Trustees over pride and prejudice and the ignorance and indulgence

¶176

granted to the lessees earlier.

¶177

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶178

20/46

¶179

22.Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel took the Court to the documents

¶180

referred supra and further pointed out the law on this aspect. The learned

¶181

counsel drew attention to the Waqf Act 1995 and more specifically to Section 32 of the Act.

¶182

23.Section 32 deals with the powers and functions of the Board and among other powers, the Board also had the power to settle the Schemes of management of a Waqf provided that no such settlement shall be made without

¶183

the parties being affected being granted the opportunity of being heard. It was

¶184

pointed out by Mr.V.Ramesh that in the Explanation to Section 32, it had been very clearly stated that a Waqf would also include a Waqf in relation to which

¶185

any Scheme had been made by any Court of law whether before or after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the Scheme which had been framed on 10.04.1922, the first respondent is still empowered to settle the

¶186

Scheme for the Management of the Waqf and a Waqf would include properties

¶187

of the Waqf. The only obligation is that notice to be issued to those who would

¶188

be affected by the settlement of such Scheme.

¶189

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶190

21/46

¶191

24.Mr.V.Ramesh further pointed out that even under the very same

¶192

provision, the Board was also granted powers to sanction lease of any immovable properties of the Waqf in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Section 51 of the Act which provided for alienation of Waqf properties without sanction of the Board and stated that if such alienation is made, it could declared as void. It had been stated that prior sanction of the Board is a pre-requisite for any alienation of any property of the Waqf. The learned counsel finally drew the attention of this Court to Section 56 of the Act which provided restrictions on the powers to grant lease of Waqf property and more particularly, drew attention to Section 56 (3) which granted powers to the Board to grant lease or renewal or to review the terms and conditions under which such lease was proposed to be granted or renewed. The only restriction was that the Board should intimate the State Government regarding the lease of any property exceeding three years and the lease would become effective after a period of 45 days from the date on which the Board so intimates the State Government. The learned counsel therefore argued that the applicants are

¶193

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶194

22/46

¶195

protected and the Board can frame Scheme but only after issuing notice to the

¶196

applicants before any such exercise is indulged by the first respondent.

¶197

25.The learned counsel further drew the notice of this Court to the Waqf

¶198

Property Lease Rules 2014, wherein, Rule 18 provided for renewal of lease and

¶199

Rule 18 provided that while renewing the lease, preference should be given to

¶200

the present lessees if they participate in the bid and match the highest bid.

¶201

However, it had also been provided that the Board may not indulge in the procedure for bidding, in the case of a lessee who has been in occupation of the Waqf property uninterruptedly from 1995 onwards. The learned counsel pointed that the applicants herein have been in occupation of the building definitely from 1995 onwards and therefore, impressed upon the cost that the

¶202

Board should not resort to the procedure of bidding.

¶203

26.However, the crucial words in that particular proviso is that Board

¶204

“may not“ apply the procedure of bidding and not “must not” apply for the procedure for bidding.

¶205

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶206

23/46

¶207

27.I am not invited to call upon to give an interpretation of the said

¶208

provision but I would still point out the words used in the Rules. The words used give an option to the Board and not a mandate to the Board not to indulge

¶209

in bidding.

¶210

28.Let me not enter into any further discussions on that particular aspect

¶211

in view of the arguments advanced byMr.Nissar Ahmed, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent and supplemented by Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶212

29.The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent placed very

¶213

strong reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in

¶214

I.S.Ibrahim and others Vs. Principal Secretary to the Government and others

¶215

reported in 2023 (2) LW 547 : 2023 (1) Writ LR 508, wherein, the interpretation

¶216

of Section 32 had come up for consideration and the Division Bench in

¶217

paragraph 9 of the Judgment had held as follows:

¶218

9. We have considered the rival

¶219

submissions made on either side and perused the

¶220

material records of this case. At the outset, there

¶221

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶222

24/46

¶223

can be no two opinions as to the proposition that by the Waqf Act 1995 coming into force, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board had replaced the Scheme Court, and has all the power of General Superintendence as per Section 32 of the said Act. The said position has clearly been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Managing Trustee, Rep. by the Board of Trustees, Nagoor Dargha cited Supra. The said view has also been followed and reaffirmed by us, in our judgement in Dr.K.M. Kalifa Masthan Sahib Kadiri Vs Tamilnadu Waqf Board & Others3, the relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶224

“3.1 At the outset, it is to be mentioned that

¶225

in respect of Nagore Dargah, there were several interse disputes between the Board of Trustees, some of which are pending and some of which have been decided by this Court. While so, it is essential to reproduce the Judgment of the earlier Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.1640 of 2016 (& batch of cases), in

¶226

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶227

25/46

¶228

respect of the Dargah, more particularly the relevant portion of the paragraph Nos.45 & 46 of the Judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

¶229

“45....

¶230

On the face of it, it only means the scheme decree will continue. But the issue here is not about anything by which the existing Scheme is sought to be replaced now but who should have the residual power of superintendence over the working of the Scheme? Until now, the Court retained to itself the residuary power to administer the Scheme it framed and from now it is going to be replaced by the Waqf Board. But the Nagoor Durgha seems to believe that the compromise operates as an estoppel against the Waqf Board from replacing the Court in its role to ensure the working of the Scheme. In H.H. The Prince of Arcot case [(2006) 3 MLJ 856], a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to hold:

¶231

“The compromise cannot read to mean that

¶232

any particular authority or institution would

¶233

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶234

26/46

¶235

become above law and no action would be taken in accordance with law notwithstanding any transgression or violation of law. No immunity above law would have been contemplated to be given by way of compromise.”

¶236

To this, this Court now intends to add that no statutory authority has the power to barter away his statutory responsibility, duty or authority merely to facilitate a compromise, howsoever honourable the intentions that peace may reign in a cause be.

¶237

46.1 To sum up, even where the Courts have framed a scheme under Sec.92 CPC for the administration of the Waqf, on the establishment of Waqf Board, the residual power of superintendence of the Waqfs which hither to remained with the Court as the conscience keeper of the public trusts founded on the principle of parens patriae would shift from the Scheme Court to the Waqf Board. In effect, the Waqf Board replaces the Principal District Court, Nagapattinam, in administering the Scheme

¶238

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶239

27/46

¶240

settled in O.S.30 of 1946. However, its power of superintendence stops on determination of surplus income meant for the kasupangudars. The authorities which the counsel for the Waqf Board has cited and listed in paragraph 32 above may be referred to. One immediate effect is that the Waqf Board cannot claim contribution in relation to the surplus funds meant for distribution to the Kasupangudars.”

¶241

(emphasis supplied)

¶242

3.2 Thus, by virtue of Section 32 of the

¶243

Waqf Act, 1995 and the above decision of this Court, the proposition that the Waqf Board had replaced and had taken the position of the Scheme Court is well settled.....”

¶244

9.1 Similarly in Mahboob Basha Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, cited supra, The Learned Single Judge has held as follows:~

¶245

“11. I would like to lay stress upon the

¶246

explanation appended to Sub~Section (1) of Section 32 of the Act, which unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and shed light that Wakf

¶247

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶248

28/46

¶249

Board has been conferred with enormous statutory powers to deal with even the Wakfs covered by Scheme decrees formulated by the court.

¶250

12. A plain reading of the said provision will leave no doubt in the mind of the court that the statutory body, irrespective of any Court decree or order already governing such Wakf under any scheme, can exercise its power. While exercising its power, how the Board should conduct itself is found exemplified in Section 32 of the Act itself and I need not dilate or elaborate on that because as of now, this court is not enjoined to deal with those aspects in extenso.”

¶251

10. We are also in agreement with the Learned Counsel that the Waqf Board after replacing the Scheme Court, need not make an application before the Scheme Court, for the purpose of taking over the management of the Waqf in the normal course. However, in the instant case, the matter is not simply pending before the Scheme Court or any private person

¶252

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶253

29/46

¶254

appointed by the Scheme Court to administer the Waqf.

¶255

30.Further, paragraph Nos.14, 15 & 16 was also pointed out and the same is as follows:

¶256

14. Be that as it may, from a reading of the Trust Deed and the Scheme Decree, there can be no two opinions that the objects and acts done under the Trust is of religious (Mohamedan) in nature. The donor is a Muslim who declared the Trust for the religious and charitable purposes mentioned therein and thus, it is undoubtedly a Waqf. The same has also been duly registered and enumerated as a Waqf, which is published in the Gazette even under the old Act as early as 20.05.1959 and the perusal of the Register of Waqfs categorically shows the enlisting of the Waqf and its properties.

¶257

15. That being so, when by operation of law

¶258

henceforth, it will only be the Waqf Board, which will be the Scheme Court, it would be as per law, to entrust all the matters/papers relating to the

¶259

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶260

30/46

¶261

Waqf in respect of the scheme suit in C.S.No.314 of 1930, to be transmitted and henceforth be dealt with by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. However, the Official Trustee being an authority under the Official Trustees Act, need not continue to be a Muthawalli or in the management of the Waqf as the same would result in twin authorities managing the Waqf leading to repugnancy, as he is to be bound by the directions of this Court as per Section 25 of the Official Trustees Act, and the directions given by the Waqf Board, which will not be in the bests interests of the Wakf and carrying on the pious causes intended by the donor.

¶262

16. On the other hand now the Waqf Board

¶263

is fully empowered to (i) appoint Muthawalli and manage the waqf; (ii) to takeover the direct management; (iii) to decide the claims made by the lineal descendants and persons associated with the trust carrying out the charities in accordance with the law; (iv) alter the scheme or frame new scheme etc, after due notice to all the parties, etc. The parties aggrieved by the

¶264

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶265

31/46

¶266

decisions of the Waqf Board are entitled to approach the Waqf Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶267

31.Finally, the Division Bench had held as follows in paragraph Nos.18

¶268

(iv) (a) & (b).

¶269

18. In the result,

¶270

(i) Writ Appeal No.1339 of 2021 stands partly allowed ;

¶271

(ii) The impugned notification of the

¶272

Tamilnadu Waqf Board, Chennai bearing Ref. No.IV~3(a)/97/2020, dated 04.11.2020 published

¶273

vide Tamilnadu Government Gazettee dated 11.11.2020 bearing G.O.No.46 ; and the resolution

¶274

passed in Serial No.1, Inam No.12/2020, bearing Na.Ka.No.12765/16/A9, Chennai dated 07.10.2020 and signed on 20.10.2020, shall stand quashed;

¶275

(iii) Consequential Orders dated 23.03.2021 bearing Se.Mu.O.No.264/Se/Ni.A/21 and notice in Na.Ka.No.264/Se/Ni.A/21, dated 23.03.2021, shall also stand quashed;

¶276

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶277

32/46

¶278

(iv) Application No.273/2021 filed by the Tamilnadu Waqf Board is allowed on the following terms:

¶279

(a) It is declared that the Tamilnadu Waqf Board has replaced the Scheme Court as per Section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995;

¶280

(b) The registry is directed to transfer all the papers and other records relating to the Scheme Suit in C.S.No.314 of 1930 are ordered to be transmitted / transferred to the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board;

¶281

32.Mr.Nissar Ahmed by placed very strong reliance on the dictum laid

¶282

down by the Division Bench that in all matters relating to the management of a

¶283

Waqf which includes administration of the Board and which further includes

¶284

examination of letting out on lease or renewal of lease of a property of the

¶285

Waqf, that such jurisdiction would vest only with the Waqf Board and if

¶286

aggrieved by any order of the Waqf Board later to the Waqf Tribunal. It had

¶287

been strongly argued that the jurisdiction of this Court stands ousted by the

¶288

interpretation of Section 32 of the Waqf Act 1995 which provision had again

¶289

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶290

33/46

¶291

been reiterated and retained in the subsequent amendment of the Waqf Act 1995

¶292

in the year 2013. It had therefore been categorically asserted by Mr.Nissar Ahmed and also equally strongly by Mr.Avinash Wadhwani that the jurisdiction

¶293

of the Court has been ousted and therefore, the records should be transferred to

¶294

the Waqf Board for the Board to take a decision on the requests made by the applicants in these applications for the lease to be extended or not extended and compensation to be paid or not to be paid. It had been stated that this Judgment is binding on this Court.

¶295

33.Mr.V.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the applicants however sought to distinguish the dictum laid down by stating that the Division Bench was considering the activities of a Muthawalli and whether he could be removed and whether his term of office could be re-examined by the Court under the Scheme framed by the Waqf. Mr.V.Ramesh opined that the principles will not apply to properties wherein lease had been granted.

¶296

34.With due respect to the learned Counsel, I would disagree with that contention. Section 32 of the Act is quite comprehensive. It deals with the

¶297

powers and functions of the Board. Quite apart from the specific provisions

¶298

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶299

34/46

¶300

which had been pointed out, section 32 (2) (d), also deals with directions for

¶301

administration of the Waqf and with reference to the income of the Waqf and

¶302

records relating to the origin and income of every activity of the Waqf. It is not restricted only to removal or examination of the working of a Muthawali, but also very specifically deals with the sanctioning of lease of any movable

¶303

property of the Waqf.

¶304

35.The explanation to section 32 is very clear on this aspect. Let me

¶305

extract both 32(g) and 32( j), which are as follows.

¶306

32. Powers and functions of the Board.—

¶307

(g) to appoint and remove mutawallis in accordance with the provisions of this Act;

¶308

(j) to sanction lease of any immovable property of a waqf in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder:Provided that no such sanction shall be given unless a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Board present cast their vote in favour of such transaction:

¶309

36.Section 32 would apply to controlling the activities of Muthawali and

¶310

also to the administration of the property of the Waqf. The Division Bench

¶311

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶312

35/46

¶313

while dealing with section 32 had not stated that the particular judgement would

¶314

apply only to the appointment and removal of Muthawali and would not extend to any decision taken on the lease of the land. The Division Bench had dealt with section 32 as section 32 stood in its entirety and incidentally, in that particular case, applying the reasonings which they had drawn to the appointment and removal of a Muthawali. This Court can very well take advantage of those reasonings and bring into ambit those reasons for the grant or extension or renewal of lease.

¶315

37.I would therefore abide with the decision of the Division Bench and declare that the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board had replaced the Scheme cost as per section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995. I would therefore direct the Registry to index all papers and records of this particular suit in C.S.No.196 of 1913 and transmit/transfer them to the Tamilnadu Waqf Board.

¶316

38.The Division Bench had also stated that the Waqf Board alone has the

¶317

power to alter the scheme or frame a scheme. The only embargo is, notice

¶318

should be given to all the parties who would affected by such alteration or

¶319

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶320

36/46

¶321

framing of such Scheme. I am confident that the Waqf Board would act with in

¶322

the provisions of the Act and the Rules and would not exceed their jurisdiction and would keep in mind the interest of the first respondent which interests the

¶323

erstwhile management of the first respondent in my opinion, had forgotten,

¶324

deserted and abandoned.

¶325

39.The learned counsel for the applicant in A.No.348 of 2020 stated that

¶326

the applicant therein has been very honest and had adhered to the terms of the lease and had not made any profits or taken advantage of the extension of lease.

¶327

All these are issues which the Board will now have to take into consideration.

¶328

40.Mr.V.Ramesh, also referred to Section 51 of the Transfer of Property

¶329

Act, 1882 about the improvements made by bonafide holders under defective

¶330

title. This would only imply that the applicants have defective title. However,

¶331

Mr.V.Ramesh argued that since the applicants have made improvements, some compensation must be paid. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 about the effect of holding

¶332

over after the determination of lease. All these aspects would now come under

¶333

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶334

37/46

¶335

the purview of the Waqf Board. Let me not examine them further and give my

¶336

observations on the same.

¶337

All these applications are dismissed however without costs, with a

¶338

direction to the Registry to index all the papers and transfer them to the Tamil

¶339

Nadu Waqf Board and with a further direction to the applicants that if they so

¶340

desire to approach afresh the Waqf Board. The back records would be required

¶341

by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. Consequently, connected applications are also

dismissed.

19-08-2025

sli

OA No. 385 of 2021

¶346

To

¶347

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahiba s Endowments and another Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman, having its registered office at No.165/76, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶348

2.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Waqf House, 1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seetha Kathi Nagar, Chennai 600 001 Represented by its (a) Special officer and (b) CEO.

¶349

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶350

38/46

¶351

OA No. 88 of 2020

¶352

To

¶353

1.The Ameerunnisa begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President mr.Jalal ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶354

2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶355

A No. 1702 of 2021

¶356

To

¶357

1.Mrs.Kollipara Ranganayaki and 3 others W/o.Kollipara Sambasiva Rao Residing at No.304, T.T.K.Salai, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶358

2.Mrs.Chandrakala Prabhakar W/o.S.V.Prabhakar Pai, residing at M4/3, 4th Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.

¶359

3.The Ammerunnisa Begum Sahibs Endowments Represented by its President

¶360

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶361

39/46

¶362

Mr.JalalAmeenur Rahman, Having its registered office at No.165/76, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶363

4.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, having office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Sala, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶364

OA No. 87 of 2020

¶365

To

¶366

1.The Ameerunnisa begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President mr.Jalal ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶367

2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶368

A No. 535 of 2020

¶369

To

¶370

1.The Ameerunnisa begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President mr.Jalal ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶371

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶372

40/46

¶373

2.The Chairman

¶374

Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶375

A No. 534 of 2020

¶376

To

¶377

1.The Ameerunnisa begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President mr.Jalal ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶378

2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶379

OA No. 121 of 2020

¶380

To

¶381

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶382

2.The Chairman

¶383

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Having its

¶384

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶385

41/46

¶386

office at Santhome High road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore chennai 600 004.

¶387

A No. 820 of 2020

¶388

To

¶389

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶390

2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore chennai 600 004.

¶391

OA No. 120 of 2020

¶392

To

¶393

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶394

2.The Chairman

¶395

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore chennai 600 004.

¶396

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶397

42/46

¶398

A No. 821 of 2020

¶399

To

¶400

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibs Endowments and another represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶401

2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore chennai 600 004.

¶402

OA No. 51 of 2020

¶403

To

¶404

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibs endowments and another Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, chennai 600 005.

¶405

2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶406

A No. 343 of 2020

¶407

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶408

43/46

¶409

To

¶410

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibs endowments and another Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at NO.165/76 Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, chennai 600 005.

¶411

2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Wakf Board Having its office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

¶412

A No. 1701 of 2021

¶413

To

¶414

1.Mrs.Kollipara Ranganayaki and 3 others W/o.Kollipara Sambasiva Rao Residing at No.304, T.T.K.Salai, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶415

2.Mrs.Chandrakala Prabhakar W/o.S.V.Prabhakar Pai, residing at M4/3, 4th Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.

¶416

3.The Ammerunnisa Begum Sahibs Endowments Represented by its President Mr.JalalAmeenur Rahman, Having its registered office at No.165/76, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶417

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶418

44/46

¶419

4.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, having office at Santhome High Road, Kamaraj Sala, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶420

A No. 2227 of 2021

¶421

To

¶422

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahiba s Endowments and another Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman, having its registered office at No.165/76, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶423

2.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Waqf House, 1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seetha Kathi Nagar, Chennai 600 001 Represented by its (a) Special officer and (b) CEO.

¶424

OA No. 52 of 2020

¶425

To

¶426

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibas Endowments Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶427

2.The Tamilnadu Waqf Board Waqf House 1 Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seetha Kathi Nagar, Chennai 600

¶428

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶429

45/46

¶430

001 Represented by its Special Officer and CEO.

¶431

A No. 348 of 2020

¶432

To

¶433

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibas Endowments Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶434

2.The Tamilnadu Waqf Board Waqf House 1 Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seetha Kathi Nagar, Chennai 600 001 Represented by its Special Officer and CEO.

¶435

A No. 349 of 2020

¶436

To

¶437

1.The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibas Endowments Represented by its President Mr.Jalal Ameenur Rahman Having its registered office at No.165/76 Bharathi Salai Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶438

2.The Tamilnadu Waqf Board Waqf House 1 Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seetha Kathi Nagar, Chennai 600 001 Represented by its Special Officer and CEO.

¶439

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶440

46/46

¶441

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.

¶442

sli

¶443

OA No. 385 of 2021 AND OA NO. 88 OF 2020,A NO. 1702 OF 2021,OA NO. 87 OF 2020,A NO. 535 OF 2020,A NO. 534 OF 2020,OA NO. 121 OF 2020,A NO. 820 OF 2020,OA NO. 120 OF 2020,A NO. 821 OF 2020,OA NO. 51 OF 2020,A NO. 343 OF 2020,A NO. 1701 OF 2021,A NO. 2227 OF 2021,OA NO. 52 OF 2020,A NO. 348 OF 2020,A NO. 349 OF 2020

¶444

19-08-2025

¶445

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sanjay Jalan v. The Ameerunnisa begum Sahibs Endowments and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Jalan v. The Ameerunnisa begum Sahibs Endowments and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Janakiraman (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Mrs. G.P.Savithri and Another

G.Janakiraman (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Mrs. G.P.Savithri and Another

Will of Radha Subrmani @ Vs Vijaya Manohar (Deceased)

G.Hemachalam Vs Neelavathi

SENGOTT5UVEL Vs Appavoo

Guruswamy Vs Nataraj