1. This is a plaintiffs revision against the order dt. 10-7-81 passed by the Munsiff, Kollegal, in 0. S. 3/76 dismissing I. A. 8. filed by the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the property in question is a public Ashoorkhana dedicated to the public and that Mohammed Abdulla Saheb was the Mujawar till his death and also for possession of the property.
3. The defendants contended that it was not a wakf property at all.
4. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed an application 1. A. 8 to overrule the objections of the defendants and decree the Suit straightway.
5. Learned counsel Savanur relied on Ss. 4 to 6 of Wakf Act, 1954. S. 6 which is material to this case. reads:
'6. Disputes regarding wakfs :- (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a Suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall he final :
Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under sub-section (2)of Section 5.'
Therefore, S. 6 only enables the Board or Muthavalli of the wakf or any persons interested in the wakf to institute a suit. It does not require of a person who disputes the wakf itself, to file a suit. Any person interested does not mean that each and every Muslim is included. The words 'any person interested' would connote that the person must be interested in maintaining that particular property as wakf property. If any person disputes the wakf itself, he does not come within the phrase 'any person interested therein'. In the present case the defendants contend that the particular property is not a wakf property at all. Therefore, the defendants cannot be considered to be 'persons interested' in the wakf property within the meaning o S. 6. Therefore, on this technical view of the matter the present 1. A. 8. will have to be thrown out.
6. It is no doubt true the trial court has relied on Bangalore City Corporation v. Mysore State Board of Wakfs, (1973) 1 Mys U 103 (AIR 1973 Mys 189). This court held:
'The Wakfs Board's jurisdiction under the Act is confined to matters of administration of Wakfs and not to adjudicate question of title. Ss. 4 and 6 do not invest the Commissioner or the Wakf Board with authority to decide the question whether a particular property belongs to the wakf or not and particularly so where the person claiming title is a stranger to the Wakf.'
It is no doubt true that this court has relied on . Learned counsel Savanur quoted before me the Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Krishna, AIR 1979 SC '189 The Supreme Court held (Para 26)
'It would be illogical to hold that while making a survey of wakf properties existing in t he State a Commissioner of Wakfs appointed by the State Government under sub-s. (1) of S. 4, should have no power to enquire whether a particular property is wakf property or not. It will be clear that the words 'for the purpose of making a survey of wakf properties' occurring in sub-s. (1) of S. 4 is a key to the constructions of the section. The ordinary meaning in the Random House Dictionary of English Language, is to take a general or comprehensive view of or appraise, as a situation% If the Commissioner of Wakfs has the power to make a survey, it is but implicit that in the exercise of such power he should enquire whether a wakf exists. The making of such an enquiry is a necessary concomitant of the power to survey.'
While holding so, they reversed the decision reported in . The decision of the Rajasthan High Court has been reversed only to the extent that the Supreme Court held that the Commissioner has got power to make a survey as to whether a particular property is a wakf property or not. Therefore, it cannot be said that in view of the decision by the Supreme Court, the ruling laid down by this Court is not a good law at all. Therefore the argument of learned counsel Savanur fails.
7. In the result, the lower court was justified in dismissing I. A. 8. The revision is dismissed. No costs in the revision.
8. Petition dismissed.