Skip to content


Ahmed Ibrahim Singapori Vs. the Collector of Surat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Application No. 167 of 1938
Judge
Reported inAIR1939Bom447; (1939)41BOMLR934
AppellantAhmed Ibrahim Singapori
RespondentThe Collector of Surat
Excerpt:
.....wakf (bombay amendment) act (bom. xviii of 1935), section 61.;where the property of a wakf is situate beyond the jurisdiction of a district court, its mutwalli cannot be called upon by that court to contribute to the wakf administration fund, under section 61 of the mussalman wakf (bombay amendment) act, 1935.;the wakf, which can be called upon to make a contribution to the wakf administration fund, must be a wakf to which, under the mussalman wakf act, 1923, the court directing a contribution to be made has jurisdiction.;the jurisdiction of the court is not extended to a wakf because the mutwalli either resides, at applies the income, within its jurisdiction. - - probably, in that event, it would be better to amend the register by striking the particular wakf off the..........so that, we deal with the application on the footing that the whole of the corpus of the wakf property is situate in burma, which is now outside british india, though, in our opinion, the real question is whether the property is situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the surat district court, and it does not matter whether property not so situate is situate within or without british india. the question which arises is, as to whether the mutwallis of this wakf can be called upon to contribute to the wakf administration fund under section 61 of the mussalman wakf (bombay amendment) act, 1935.3. under section 3 of the mussalman wakf act, 1923, which is an all-indial act, it is provided that within six months from the commencement of the act every mutwalli shall.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.

1. These are a series of civil revision applications, which all raise the same point and are directed to a single judgment given by the learned District Judge of Surat.

2. The facts are not quite the same in all the applications, but in the first application, which is No. 167 of 1938, the facts are that there is a wakf, the mutwallis of which reside within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Surat District Court, but the whole of the property of the wakf, which consists of immoveable property and shares, is situate in Burma. The shares are shares in companies registered in Rangoon, and the general rule is that the local situation of a share is the place where the share can be transferred on the register of the company. As far as the evidence goes, there is nothing to sug-gest that these Rangoon companies have any office within the Surat District at which their shares can be transferred. So that, we deal with the application on the footing that the whole of the corpus of the wakf property is situate in Burma, which is now outside British India, though, in our opinion, the real question is whether the property is situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Surat District Court, and it does not matter whether property not so situate is situate within or without British India. The question which arises is, as to whether the mutwallis of this wakf can be called upon to contribute to the Wakf Administration Fund under Section 61 of the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1935.

3. Under Section 3 of the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, which is an all-Indial Act, it is provided that within six months from the commencement of the Act every mutwalli shall furnish to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property of the wakf of which he is the mutwalli is situated, or to any one of two or more such Courts, a statement containing the following particulars, namely :-(a) a description of the wakf property sufficient for the identification thereof; (b) the gross annual income from such property ; and other particulars which it is not necessary here to mention. Then, under Section 4 the Court can direct the publication of certain notices, and under Section 5 the mutwalli has to furnish the Court with certain statements. In our opinion, throughout the Act ' the Court' referred to is the Court mentioned in Section 3, that is the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the wakf property is situate.

4. Under the Bombay Amendment Act of 1935, the main Act is amended in various particulars, but it seems to us that, throughout the whole of the amendments, 'the Court' referred to is the same Court as that referred to in the principal Act, Under Section 61, which is the section in question in the present case, it is provided that every wakf shall, for the purpose of meeting the charges and expenses) incidental to the registration, superintendence, administration and control of wakf's, the maintenance of the registers of wakfs, the scrutiny and audit of accounts of wakfs, the institution and defence of suits and proceedings relating to wakfs, and generally carrying into effect the purposes of the Act, be liable to pay to the Wakf Administration Fund of the district concerned the contribution therein mentioned. In our opinion, the only wakfs, which can be called upon to make a contribution to that Fund, are the wakfs to which, under the principal Act, the Court directing a contribution to be made has jurisdiction, and that is in this case the Surat District Court.

5. The view of the learned District Judge was that, inasmuch as the bulk of the income is spent in Surat or its neighbourhood and the trustees reside there, he had jurisdiction to direct a contribution to the Fund in respect of all wakfs which have been registered in the district of Surat. But, in our opinion, there is nothing in the Act which extends the jurisdiction of the Court to cases in which the trustees reside within the district, or in which they apply income within the district. If seems to us that the only relevant fact to consider is the place where the wakf property is situate, and Section 3 of the main Act and also Section 6D of the Amendment Act, in our view, make it clear that the property of the wakf referred to in the sections is the corpus, and not the income. No doubt in a case where the trustees of a wakf live in a place1 where the beneficiaries of the wakf also live, though the property of the wakf is situate elsewhere, and the trustees merely employ an agent to collect the income of the wakf property and transmit it to them, there would be some force in the contention that the trustees could be called upon to account at the place where they collect and distribute the income ; but we are unable to give that meaning to the Act. It seems to us that the jurisdiction of the Court is confined entirely to cases in which the wakf property is situate within the limits of its jurisdiction.

6. In all these cases we think that there will have to be an enquiry under Section 6C of the Amendment Act to ascertain whether the whole or any substantial portion of the property of the wakf is situate within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Surat, unless in any case the Collector is prepared to admit that no property is so situate. If in fact it be found that no property is so situatg, in our view the District Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the wakf and cannot call upon the mutwallis for any accounts. Probably, in that event, it would be better to amend the register by striking the particular wakf off the register in the Surat Court; but, as no application is before us to amend the register, we make no order in that respect. In cases; in which some property of the wakf is situate within the local limits, contribution in respect of that property can be levied. The cases will have to be referred back to the District Court to be dealt with in accordance with these views.

7. We make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //