A.S.M. Abdul Rahim Saheb vs The Madras State Wakf Board and others

Ramakrishnan, J.—The question which has arisen in this civil revision petition is whether the suit O.S. No. 141 of 1962 of the District Munsif Court, Palani, should be valued for the purpose of Court-fee under S. 25(d) of the Court Fees Act, as done by the plaintiff, or under S. 28 of the Court Fees Act as ruled by the learned District Munsif. The plaintiff is the Mutavalli of a certain Wakf. On account of allegations of mismanagement the Wakf Board passed the following order: So we direct that the respondent (plaintiff) will continue as a mutavalli but that a supervisory body be appointed to supervise the management of the wakf by the respondent. Both the parties will suggest a few names of independent persons who can be thought of for this committee. The duty of the committee shall be to watch the management of the wakf by the Muthavalli and give him necessary advice and guidance and if he does not comply with such guidance to inform this Board for necessary action.

The relief which the plaintiff seeks in the suit is for a declaration that this order is not valid and binding on him and for a consequent injunction restraining the proposed committee from interfering with the plaintiff''s management. It is clear from a perusal of the order of the Board, that they did not intend this Committee to function as Mutavalli, but it had to function only as a watch dog-so to say - to see that the plaintiff acted rightly, give him advice and guidance, and report to the Board in case he acted wrongly. S. 28 of the Court Fees Act refers to declaratory decrees whether with or without consequential relief in respect of trust property between the trustees or rival claimants to the office of the trustee. By no stretch of interpretation can it be considered that the plaintiff and the members of the Committee appointed by the Wakf Board to watch the plaintiff''s work stand in the position of rival trustees or rival claimants to the office of the trustee. It is only in the latter event, will S. 28 of the Court Fees Act be attracted. The learned District Munsif has clearly misdirected himself, when he observed that from the allegations in the plaint it appeared that there was a dispute to the office of the trustee, and that the dispute was whether the hereditary Mutavalli had a right to manage or whether the Committee constituted by the Board should attend to the management. As already mentioned, this committee has only a watching brief, and its powers are only advisory, namely, to give necessary advice and guidance to the plaintiff, and (sic) as such. No doubt, in the plaint, in paragraph 16(c), there is an allegation that the plaintiff cannot be required to share his powers and rights as mutavalli with absolute strangers in the matter of the management and administration of the wakf, and that the effect of the order of the Board would be to nullify the plaintiff''s hereditary right of Mutavalli and cause detriment to his powers of management of the institution. Though the plaintiff took this alarmist view of the effect of the appointment of the Wakf Committee, in paragraph 14 of the plaint, he has clearly stated that the powers of this committee were only to watch the management of the wakf by the plaintiff-mutavalli and give him necessary advice. That would show that the plaintiff was aware that the jurisdiction of this committee did not extend beyond that of an advisory body. The fact that he took an alarmist view of the result of the interference of the Committee, in a later paragraph of the plaint, would not show that he had conceded that they had become rival trustees. S. 28 will be attracted only if there is a dispute between him and the rival trustees to the office of the trustee. In my opinion the valuation of the plaint under S. 25(d) of the Court Fees Act is correct. The revision is allowed and the valuation in the plaint is upheld. There will be no order as to costs.