Mohammedia Coop. Building Society Ltd vs Lakshmi S. Coop. Building Society Ltd. & ...

3. The property in question indisputably is a wakf property. It admeasures Ac.35.20 cents pertaining to Survey No.63 of village Bhavanipuram in the town of Vijaywada. Vijaywada is one of the biggest commercial hubs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. There exists a Dargah known as Dargah of Hazrat Galib shaheed. Inter alia, on finding that the Mutwallis appointed for the said Dargah had not been performing their duties in a proper and efficient manner, the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board appointed respondent Nos.2 to 9 as 'Mujavars' by an order dated 27.7.1973, stating :

4. First respondent is a co-operative society. On or about 2.8.1982, the respondent Nos.2 to 9 allegedly entered into an agreement for sale with the first respondent herein agreeing to transfer the said 35 acres 20 cents of land at a price of Rs.70,000/- per acre.

5. Allegedly, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash was paid as advance, a receipt wherefor is said to have been issued.

14. A notification pursuant thereto was purported to have been issued on 26.5.1983. Allegedly, however, no advertisement was issued prior thereto and, thus, no offer was called for. Yet, a purported sanction was granted. First Respondent questioned the said Government Order No.773 dated 4.5.1983 by filing a writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed having become infructuous.

15. The Government, however, in the mean time, purported to have accorded sanction by issuing G.O. 773 dated 4.5.1983 to sell the said land in favour of the appellant society.

16. A deed of sale was thereafter executed by the respondents 2 to 9 as also the Wakf Board in favour of the appellant society. First Respondent contended that pursuant to the said purported agreement for sale dated 2.8.1982, it had been put in possession but it was threatened to be dispossessed. It, on the said premise, filed a suit for permanent injunction which was marked as O.S. No.200 of 1983. Allegedly, it was dispossessed. It filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The said suit was marked as suit No.449 of 1984; the prayers made wherein were:

22. Before us, not only three separate appeals have been filed; one by the society, the second by Dargah of Hazarth Galib Shaheed and the third by the Wakf Board but also a large number of applications have been filed for intervention and impleadment on behalf of the allottees. We may place on record that at one point of time, the first respondent filed an application for impleadment of the allottees who were about four hundred in number in the suit but the same was however, not pressed. Some of the allottees have allegedly purchased the land before 24.4.1984, i.e., prior to institution of the suit. Most of the applicants, however, have purchased thereafter, namely, during the pendency of the suit. Appellant society also allotted lands in favour of Mujjavardars and/or their relatives.

The contention that the permission granted by the Government stood cancelled upon taking into consideration GOMs No.343 staying the operation of GOMs No.773 wherein a large number of irregularities were recorded including the one that the Wakf Board did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 12 of the Rules read with Section 36A of the Act was accepted. Deed of sale executed by the appellant society in favour of the allottees was also held to be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The sale transactions effected in favour of the appellant society were declared to be null and void and on the said premise, the contention that all transactions having already been completed, no further direction should be issued, was furthermore rejected.

Provided that no member of a Committee or Corporation shall be deemed to be mutawalli unless such member is an office bearer of such Committee or Corporation."

We have been taken through the deposition of Gulam Ali Akbar, DW-

41. If Mujavars have no authority to sell the property, the agreement of sale could not have been directed to be specifically performed. In any event, as no permission had been granted by the Wakf Board, the Courts below had committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment.

42. We may, at this stage, also notice the reliefs prayed for in the plaint :

43. However, the learned trial Judge in its judgment directed the defendant Nos. 10 to 12 to execute the deed of sale.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly.

45. In view of the findings aforementioned, it is not necessary to pass any separate orders on the IAs for impleadment filed by the allottees.

46. Appeals are, thus, allowed with no order as to costs.