Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 468 (ALL)

SHIA CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS v. SYED ALAM

2002-04-04

N.K.MEHROTRA

body2002
N. K. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THE aforesaid two revisions have been filed under Section 76 of U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, against the judgment and award dated 10. 9. 1996 passed by the Civil Judge, lucknow/tribunal constituted under U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, in references bearing regular Suit Nos. 2 of 1993, Syed Alam v. Shia Central Board of Waqfs and Anr. and 262 of 1992. Smt. Abida Begum v. Shiya Central Board of Waqfs and Anr. . ( 2 ) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. ( 3 ) LATE Shri Shamsul Ulema Maulana Syed Siubte Hasan Saheb created a waqf by a waqf deed dated 8/10. 4. 1933. The waqf deed gave the details of the property. On receipt of the report, the controller of the Board passed the order of the registration of waqf of Shamsul Ulema Maulana syed Sibte Hasan Saheb and lis properties in the register of waqf on 27. 2. 1991. On 1. 1. 1993, the opposite party filed a reference bearing Regular Suit No. 2 of 1993. One other reference petition challenging the same order of the Board was also filed by Smt. Abida Begum, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 262 of 1992. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial court/tribunal. The main prayer in the reference was that the decree be passed for setting aside the order dated 27. 2. 1991 registering the ancestral house of the revisionist as the waqf property. The issues were also framed with regard to only disputed property, i. e. , the ancestral house of the opposite party but the learned trial court allowed both the references on 10. 9. 1996 by a common judgment and set aside the entire registration of waqf. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has argued before this Court that the entire registration of waqf vide order dated 27. 2. 1991 cannot be set aside because the opposite parties never claimed the cancellation of the entire registration and they claimed only the registration of the waqf with regard to their ancestral house. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party has shown the portion of the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has discussed about an affidavit filed by Syed Waris Hasan Naqvi, the mutwalli. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party has shown the portion of the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has discussed about an affidavit filed by Syed Waris Hasan Naqvi, the mutwalli. In this affidavit Syed Waris Hasan Naqvi has informed the Board that neither, he personally nor on behalf of the waqf Shamsul Ulema Maulana Syed Sibte Hasan Saheb has ever been in possession over the House No. 24 of Banjari Tola, Lucknow and that house is in possession of Shri Syed Alam as owner, the opposite party in this revision. He has also given the affidavit before the Board that this house is not included in the waqf property. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist and the opposite party both have consented that the reference was only for cancellation of the registration of the ancestral house of the opposite party as waqf property, therefore, the impugned order can be made applicable only with regard to the ancestral house No. 24, Banjari Tola, Lucknow and the revision can be allowed modifying the impugned order to that extent. ( 7 ) I agree with the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel of the parties. ( 8 ) REVISION Nos. 58 of 1996 and 1 of 1997 are disposed of and the order dated 10. 9. 1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Lucknow/tribunal under the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 is modified to the extent that the registration of waqf with regard to the ancestral house of Syed Alam and Smt. Abida Begum, i. e. , house No. 24, Banjari Tola, Lucknow in the order of the Board dated 27. 2. 1991 shall stand set aside and the remaining order dated 27. 2. 1991 of the Board with regard to the other properties shall stand confirmed. .