Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Waqf Board in Limitation and Notice Dispute. Waqf Property Declaration Suit Barred by One-Year Limitation Under Section 5(2) United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936 and Non-Compliance with Section 53 Notice.

Suit for declaration that properties of Darga Hazarat Syed Salar Mahsood Ghazi were not waqf under the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936, and that the Sunni Central Board of Waqf had no authority to assume management.

Appellants (members of Waqf Committee) sought declaration, consequential injunction, and subsidiary reliefs against Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P., to restrain the Board from exercising authority over the properties.

Respondent Sunni Central Board had taken into management the properties of the Darga Sharif by notification under Section 5(1) of the Act dated February 26, 1944, which the appellants claimed was illegal.

Trial court (Civil Judge, Bahraich) partly decreed suit on April 15, 1947, holding properties not waqf, but limited relief due to absence of Section 53 notice. Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed respondent's appeal on April 22, 1953, holding properties constituted waqf, suit barred by limitation, and notice not given; dismissed suit. Certificate granted under Article 133 to appeal to Supreme Court.

Whether the properties in suit constituted waqf under the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936 Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Section 5(2) of the Act Whether Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 saved limitation due to earlier suit proceedings Whether the suit was maintainable without notice under Section 53 of the Act Whether failure to mention offerings in the notification under Section 5(1) rendered the notification defective

Appellants contended that Section 5(2) of the Waqf Act did not apply, or if applied, Section 15 of Limitation Act saved limitation due to the earlier proceeding; that the notification was defective for not mentioning offerings; and that Section 53 notice was not required for these reliefs. Respondent argued that the properties were waqf, the suit was barred by one-year limitation under Section 5(2), and the statutory notice under Section 53 was mandatory and not given. Appellants relied on Musammat Basso Kaur v. Lala Dhua Singh for the proposition that Section 15 Limitation Act applied, but the Court held it inapplicable. Respondent relied on Chaturbhuj Mohanlal v. Bhicam Chand Choroyia & Sons, Mathu Kutty v. Varoe Kutty, and Lal Chand v. Messrs. Basanta Mal Devi Dayal & Ors. for liberal construction of Section 5(2).

The phrase 'any person interested in a waqf' in Section 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936 includes any person interested in a transaction held to be waqf by the Commissioner; limitation periods must be strictly construed without equitable considerations; Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 applies only where a suit has been stayed by an injunction or order, and the test is whether institution would be an act in contempt of court; offerings by devotees are income of a waqf and omission to mention them in a notification under Section 5(1) does not invalidate it; notice under Section 53 of the Waqf Act is mandatory for all suits against the Central Board, including suits for any relief in respect of the waqf.

The expression ' any person interested in a waqf ' used in s. 5(2) Of the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936, pro- perly construed, means any person interested in a transaction that is held to be waqf by the Commissioner of Waqfs appointed under the Act and as such the appellants fell within that category. Rules of limitation are arbitrary in nature and in construing them it is not permissible to import equitable considerations, and effect must be given to the strict grammatical meaning of the words used. Section 15 of the Limitation Act can be attracted only where a suit has been stayed by an injunction or order and the test would be whether its institution would or would not be an act in contempt of the court’s order. Offerings made from time to time by the devotees visiting the Darga Sharif were by their very nature an income of the Darga, and failure to mention them in the notification under s. 5(1) Of the Act, did not render the notification defective. The provision as to notice under S. 53 Of the Act was applicable to suits in respect of acts of the Central Board as well as suits for any relief in respect of the waqf.

On February 26, 1944, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf issued a notification under Section 5(1) of the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936, taking over management of the Darga properties. An earlier suit against the Managing Committee resulted in a decree on October 16, 1941, removing the appellants, which was set aside on appeal by the Chief Court on March 7, 1946. The appellants filed Regular Suit No. 25 of 1946 on October 18, 1946, in the Court of Civil Judge, Bahraich. The trial court partly decreed the suit on April 15, 1947, holding the properties not waqf but limiting relief due to absence of Section 53 notice. Respondent appealed to the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), and appellants filed cross-objections. On April 22, 1953, the High Court allowed respondent's appeal, held the properties constituted waqf, the suit was barred by limitation, and notice under Section 53 was not given; it set aside the trial decree and dismissed the suit. Appellants obtained a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution and filed Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1955 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on September 16, 1958.

• United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act, 1936 (U.P. XIII of 1936): 5, 18, 53
• Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908): 14, 15
• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 133