Ameer Hassan Makan Welfare Trust and Another vs Karnataka Board of Wakfs and Others

A suit was filed by the Appellants claiming that in the property in question the Appellants had been granted privilege to bury the family members of Syed Ameer Hassan Makan and on 9.11.1964 a notification had been issued including the said property in the list of Wakfs. A suit was filed in the year 1992. The Trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit, if at all, should have been filed as contemplated u/s 6 of the Wakfs Act within a period of one year from the date of the notification.

The matter was carried in appeal and thereafter, in second appeal unsuccessfully.

In this appeal by special leave the contention put forth is that the decision in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan Vs. Radha Kishan and Others, , explaining the meaning of the person interested in Wakf and if that expression is understood in that manner the Appellants do not become a person interested in the Wakf though they are interested in the property. However, the High Court did not agree with this contention in view of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Karnataka Board of Wakfs Vs. Hazrath Attulla Shah Dhargah, to the effect that 'any person interested therein' could be understood as person having right to worship or perform religious rite and all Muslims, so entitled are persons interested.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged that this decision should not have been applied to the facts of the present case at all.

Assuming that the learned Counsel for the Appellant is correct in her submission, we may point out that the notification in the present case had been issued on 9.11.1964 and the suit had been filed in the year 1992 and if this is so, the whole basis of the suit gets lost. What is challenged in the suit is the inclusion of the property in the list of Wakf and interference thereof with their right. Hence, we do not think any useful purpose will be served by setting aside the order of the Trial Court or of the Appelate Courts and remitting the matter for deciding on merits. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the order made by the High Court in this matter without going into the fine questions of law raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. It is assured by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Wakf Board is not interested in disturbing the tombs that exist on the land in dispute and without disturbing the same the property will be developed appropriately. The appeal is dismissed.