Allowed¶20

B. Hidayathullah v. Janab Mujamil Basha

Impleadment – Necessary party

Madras HC10 Jan 2025CMP/16463/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, N. Sathish Kumar, J., order dated 10.01.2025 in C.M.P.Nos.16463 & 16460 of 2024 in C.R.P.Nos.565 & 568 of 2024 — impleadment of B. Hidayathullah, claimed hereditary mutawalli of Hazarath Yarub Dargah, Denkanikottai, as 5th respondent; necessary party test; rights directly affected by outcome; Waqf Act, 1995 Section 64(4); Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal A.A.No.14 of 2019; O.S.No.33 of 2019 decree dated 12.01.2024; impleading petitions allowed.

What did the court decide?

B. Hidayathullah impleaded as 5th respondent in both C.R.P.No.565 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.568 of 2024; Registry directed to carry out necessary amendment in the CRPs. ¶20

B. Hidayathullah Vs Janab Mujamil Basha — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

B. Hidayathullah impleaded as 5th respondent in both C.R.P.No.565 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.568 of 2024; Registry directed to carry out necessary amendment in the CRPs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether B. Hidayathullah, claiming to be a hereditary mutawalli of Hazarath Yarub Dargah, Denkanikottai, is a just and necessary party to be impleaded as 5th respondent in C.R.P.Nos.565 and 568 of 2024.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

All those against whom relief is prayed and persons whose rights will be affected by the decree are necessary parties to the suit; a successful party whose rights are likely to be directly affected should be arraigned as a necessary party for effective adjudication.

¶7

Key takeaways

If the orders impugned in the revisions are found perverse and illegal, it would directly affect the impleading petitioner's interest; since the issue of appointment to the office of mutawalli is the subject matter of the revisions, the impleading petitioner is a just and necessary party, and reversal of the Waqf Tribunal's findings would bind him, a decree of declaration already existing in his favour.ratio¶14
Both the impleading petitions are allowed and the petitioner is impleaded as 5th respondent in both the revision petitions.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Impleadment — Necessary party — Applicant claiming to be a hereditary mutawalli of Hazarath Yarub Dargah, Denkanikottai, sought impleadment as 5th respondent in revisions challenging (i) the decree and judgment dated 12.01.2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2019 and (ii) the order dated 12.01.2024 of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai dismissing A.A.No.14 of 2019 filed by the 7th defendant under Section 64(4) of the Waqf Act, 1995 — Held, persons against whom relief is prayed and whose rights will be affected by the decree are necessary parties; if the impugned orders are found perverse and illegal, the applicant's interest would be directly affected, and reversal of the Tribunal's findings would bind him in whose favour a decree of declaration already exists — Both impleading petitions allowed; Registry directed to amend the CRPs (N. Sathish Kumar, J., 10.01.2025).

¶1

C.M.P.Nos.16463 & 16460 of 2024

¶2

C.M.P.No.16463 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.565 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.16460 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.568 of 2024

¶3

N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,

¶4

These miscellaneous petition are filed seeking to implead, B.Hidayathullah, who claims to be a hereditary mutawalli of Hazarath Yarub Dargah at Denkanikottai, as 5^th respondent in both the revision petitions which have been filed (i) challenging the decree and judgement dated 12.01.2024 made in the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2019 and (ii) challenging the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai, dismissing the appeal application in A.A.No.14 of 2019 filed by the 7^th defendant under Section 64 (4) of the Waqf

¶5

Act, 1995 and thereby refusing to interfere with the proceedings of the waqf board.

¶6

Heard both sides.

¶7

It is settled law that all those against whom relief is prayed and persons whose rights will be affected by the decree are necessary parties to the suit. It is also the settled law that if successful parties whose rights are likely to be directly affected such party should be arraigned as necessary party for effective adjudication of the controversy in question.

¶8

1 of 4

¶9

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

¶10

C.M.P.Nos.16463 & 16460 of 2024

¶11

The impleading petitioner claims to have been appointed as a hereditary

¶12

mutawalli of Hazarath Yarub Dargah as per the custom along with D.I. Fayaz Khan, the 2^nd defendant in the suit. His appointment as mutawalli was challenged in an appeal application, and the appointment to the office of mutawalli, as per custom, was seriously resisted by the 7^th defendant.

¶13

No doubt, the issue revolves around the appointment of mutawalli as per hereditary. In the instant case, if this court finds that the orders impugned in the revision are perverse and illegal, then certainly it would directly affect the interest of the impleading petitioner. A necessary party is a person or persons whose interests are affected directly by the outcome of the case.

¶14

Considering the averments made in the suit as well as appeal application touching upon the issue of appointment to the office of mutawalli which is subject matter of issue in the revisions, this court believes that the impleading petitioner is a just and necessary party to the proceedings, and that if the findings recorded by the waqf tribunal are reversed in the revision petitions the same will undoubtedly bind on the impleading party in whose favour the there is already a decree of declaration.

¶15

2 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.P.Nos.16463 & 16460 of 2024

¶18