Skip to content


Ganapathy Naicker and anr. Vs. the Special Officer for Wakfs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1974)1MLJ239
AppellantGanapathy Naicker and anr.
RespondentThe Special Officer for Wakfs
Cases ReferredP.S. Abdul Kadir v. The Maharathul Kadiria Sabha
Excerpt:
- .....the procedure under section 36-b (2) has not been complied with in that notice has not been given to the petitioners. in the circumstances, the proper order to make is to allow the petitions and direct the petitioners to apply to the board for sanction. it is for the board to consider the circumstances and grant sanction or refuse to grant it. in the event of the board refusing to grant the sanction, the board will be at liberty to take proceedings under section 36-b. the petitioners are granted two months time from this date for moving the board for sanction under section 36-a. the civil revision petitions are allowed.
Judgment:

P. S. Kailasam, J.

1. The petitioners are the usufructuary mortgagees of wakf properties. One item of the property was mortgaged on 8th April, 1965 for Rs. 1,000 and another on 11th January, 1968 for Rs. 2,000. Subsequent to the passing of the amendment to the Wakf Act, 1954, section 36-A provides that:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the wakf deed, no transfer of any immoveable property of a wakf by way of

(i) sale, gift, mortgage or exchange; or

(ii) lease for a period exceeding three years in the case of agricultural land, or for a period exceeding one year in the case of non-agricultural land or building, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Board.

2. It is common ground that though the Act came into force in 1964 and the two transactions in question were in 1965 and 1968, previous sanction of the Board was not obtained. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that by this amendment, all that was intended was to accord statutory recognition to the provisions of Mohammadan Law by which before the transfer of wakf property could be made, sanction of the Court should be obtained. In a case is which the sanction of the Court was not obtained before actual transfer, a Division Bench of this Court has held in P.S. Abdul Kadir v. The Maharathul Kadiria Sabha : AIR1953Mad143 , that the sanction can be obtained subsequent to the transaction on valid grounds. I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the intention of the Legislature was to codify the provisions of the Mohamedan Law before the amendment in section 36-A. In this view, it is open to the petitioners to apply to the Board for sanction regarding the two alienations. If the petitioners fail to obtain such sanction then the provisions under section 36-B will come into operation. It is also admitted that the procedure under section 36-B (2) has not been complied with in that notice has not been given to the petitioners. In the circumstances, the proper order to make is to allow the petitions and direct the petitioners to apply to the Board for sanction. It is for the Board to consider the circumstances and grant sanction or refuse to grant it. In the event of the Board refusing to grant the sanction, the Board will be at liberty to take proceedings under section 36-B. The petitioners are granted two months time from this date for moving the Board for sanction under section 36-A. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.


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