SIRAJ UL HAQ KHAN OTHERS Vs. SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit from which this appeal arises relates to a shrine and tomb known as Darga Hazarat Syed Salar Mahsood Ghazi situated in the village of Singha Parasi and properties appurtenant to it. The plaintiffs who have preferred this appeal are members of the Waqf Committee, Darga Sharif, Bahraich, and, in their suit, they have claimed a declaration that the properties in suit were not covered by the provisions of the United Provinces Muslims Waqfs Act (XIII of 1936) (hereinafter described as the Act). The declaration, the consequential injunction and the two other subsidiary reliefs are claimed primarily against respondent 1, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Two trustees who did not join the appellants in filing the suit are impleaded as pro forma defendants 2 and 3 and they are respondents 2 and 3 before us. It appears that respondent 1 purported to exercise its authority over the properties in suit under the provisions of the Act and that led to the present suit which was filed on October 18, 1946 (No. 25 of 1946). The appellants' case is that the properties in suit are outside the operative provisions of the Act and not subject to the jurisdiction of respondent 1, and so, according to the appellants, respondent 1 has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in assuming authority over the management of the said properties. That is, the basis of the reliefs claimed by the appellants in their plaint.

(2.) The appellants' claim was resisted by respondent 1 on several grounds. It was alleged that the properties in suit did form a waqf as defined by the Act and were covered by its operative provisions. It was urged that respondent 1 was a duly constituted Sunni Central Board and it was authorised to exercise supervision over the management of the said waqf. The case for respondent 1 also was that the appellants' suit was barred by limitation and was incompetent inasmuch as before the filing of the suit the appellants had not given the statutory notice as required by S. 53 of the Act.

(3.) On these pleadings several issues were framed by the learned trial Judge; but the principal points in dispute were three: