The State Wakf Board, Madras vs Ibrahim Sahib and Others

V. Ramaswami, J.—The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for possession of the suit property which is a land bearing S. No. 104/12

and T.D.No.33 of Sendamangalam Village. It appears that on the basis of a pro forma report sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Wakf, Salem,

the suit property was notified s a Wakf u/s 5 (2) of the Wakf Act on 29th April, 1959. Finding that the defendants are now in possession and

resisting the plaintiff setting up title in themselves, the suit was filed for possession. The defendants contended that the suit property was never a

wakf property, that it was a personal inam and that the defendants had purchased the property under Exhibits B-1 and B-2 from the

predecessors-in-title and that they and their predecessors-in-title had been in possession and enjoyment for a long number of years. It was also

stated that the property is part of a minor inam which was notified under Madras Act XXX of 1963 and during the settlement proceedings they

were also given patta in respect of the same. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the suit property is not a wakf property, that it was

a personal inam granted by a Muslim Ruler to a Mohammedan and that the defendants and their predecessors-in-title have also been in possession

and enjoyment in their own rights for generations. It is seen from Exhibit A-1, the Inam Fair Register Extract, that the suit lands were granted in

inam as a personal grant to be enjoyed by the grantee hereditarily. Though the grantor''s name is given as ''not known'', the name of the original

grantee is given as Fakir Mohammed and there is nothing in this document to show that it was a wakf property. On the other hand, it shows that it

was a personal grant to be enjoyed by the grantee hereditarily. If it is a personal grant, it is opposed to the theory of wakf. It could not have been

to an institution as it is stated to be hereditary. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the fact that it is described as ''Kyrati inam'' in the

Inam Fair Registrar Extract and according to the learned Counsel it is a charitable inam and that, therefore, it is a wakf. In the descriptive list of the

inam tenures of the Madras Presidency given as Appendix B in the ""Collection of Papers relating to the Inam Settlement in the Madras Presidenty

''Kyrati'' is defined as a term applied to inams held for personal benefit by Muhammadans and others not being Brahmans. In Wilson''s, Glossary,

the meaning is given as ""alms, charity, lands given as charitable endowments, the term is more especially applicable to grants or alms given by or to

Mohammadans. Kairathi Zamin means the lands given in charity."" These clearly show that it is a personal grant, If it is a personal grant, certainly it

could not be a wakf and there is no evidence to show that the property was tied down with-out any powers of alienation. In fact, the property was

the subject-matter of alienations as seen from the documents produced in this case and the Inam Fair Register Extract itself does not show that it

was inalienable. In order to make the property even as a wakf-alal-aulad, there should be evidence to show that the ultimate beneficiary is the

poor. The only evidence we have in this case is the Inam Fair Register Extract and the pro forma report of the Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs,

Salem. These documents do not, in any manner show that the property was at any time held as a wakf property. The result of it is the suit is liable

to be dismissed. The second appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. No leave.