Supreme Court Clarifies Chief Mutawalli Succession in Hamdard Laboratories Case: Hammad Ahmed vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors. (2019) INSC 276 (3 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 3 April 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 276
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Hemant Gupta, J. (authored the judgment)

Who should manage a family-run charitable organization after the death of the previous head? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case concerning Hamdard Laboratories (India), a well-known Unani medicine company. The dispute centered on who should rightfully take over as Chief Mutawalli (manager) after the death of the previous Chief Mutawalli. The court had to interpret the terms of a Wakf Deed (a type of trust deed in Islamic law) to determine the correct line of succession.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the management of Hamdard Laboratories (India), following the death of Abdul Mueed, the previous Chief Mutawalli, on 19 March 2015. The appellant, Hammad Ahmed, claimed he was the rightful successor based on the Wakf Deed. Abdul Majeed, the first respondent and son of the deceased Chief Mutawalli, also claimed the position. This led to two separate civil suits being filed: one by Hammad Ahmed (Civil Suit No. 211 of 2017) and another by Asad Mueed, son of Abdul Mueed (Civil Suit No. 162 of 2017). Hammad Ahmed sought a declaration that Abdul Majeed was no longer a Mutawalli due to breaches of the Wakf Deed and an injunction to prevent him from continuing as Mutawalli.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, on 25 October 2017, ruled in favor of Hammad Ahmed, stating that the senior-most male descendant in the line of succession of the Wakif Mutawalli (founder of the Wakf) is entitled to be appointed as Chief Mutawalli. The Single Judge directed the defendants to hand over control of the website and other administrative passwords to Hammad Ahmed. However, the Division Bench of the High Court, on 27 November 2018, set aside the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench held that the principle of lineal primogeniture (succession by the eldest son) applied in this case, based on their interpretation of the Wakf Deed. They relied on the fact that the Wakf Deed stipulated that after the death of the first Chief Mutawalli, the senior-most male descendant in his line should be appointed as Chief Mutawalli.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the Wakf Deed of 1948, as amended in 1973. The key clauses are:

• Clause 1 of the 1973 Deed: Specifies that the senior-most male descendant of the Wakif-Mutawalli holding the office of Mutawalli will be the Chief Mutawalli. It also outlines the rights and duties of the Chief Mutawalli.
  
  “The senior most among the male descendants of the Wakif-Mutawalli who shall be holding an office of Mutawalli will be the Chief Mutawalli. After the Wakif-Mutawalli ceases to be Mutawalli, every Chief Mutawalli shall have the same rights and duties of administration of the Wakf and power of making regulations therefore as are provided in this Deed for the Wakif-Mutawalli and allocate rights and duties among other Mutawallis.”
• Clause 3 of the 1973 Deed: States that the First Chief Mutawalli will be appointed by the Wakif-Mutawalli, and thereafter, the senior-most male descendant in the line of succession holding the office of Mutawalli will be the Chief Mutawalli.
  
  “The First Chief Mutawalli will be appointed by Wakif-Mutawalli. And thereafter the senior most male descendant in line of succession (of Wakif-Mutawalli) and then holding an office of Mutawalli will be the Chief Mutawalli.”
• Clause 6 of the 1973 Deed: States the conditions for disqualification of a Mutawalli, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
  
  “In spite of the fact that a person has a right to be appointed as a Mutawalli under Clause Four herein, the Majlis-e-Ayan shall have the authority by a Special Resolution, to refuse to appoint such person as a Mutawalli or in the event of such a person having already been appointed as a Mutawalli, to remove or suspend him from office, if:
  (1)He is a minor or insane or by reason of lack of education, experience or old age and weak health is unable satisfactorily to perform his duties as a Mutawalli;
  (2)He is dishonest, addicted to alcohol, gambling or has been convicted of some crime involving moral turpitude;….”
• Clause 42-A of the 1973 Deed: Nominates Abdul Mueed and Hammad Ahmed as successors and Mutawallis.
  
  “Mr. Abdul Mueed and Mr. Hammad Ahmad, sons of Wakif-Mutawalli Hakim Abdul Hameed, are nominated as his successors under the terms of this Deed. They are the two other Mutawallis of this Wakf appointed by the Wakif-Mutawalli. They will act as Chief Mutawallis and Mutawallis respectively.”

The Supreme Court also noted that a previous judgment of the Delhi High Court had determined that Hamdard was not a Wakf as defined under the Wakf Act, 1995, and that the property was vested in its governing body.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

• Appellant (Hammad Ahmed):
  • Argued that the Wakf Deed, as amended in 1973, clearly states that the senior-most male descendant of the Wakif Mutawalli, who is also a Mutawalli, should be the Chief Mutawalli.
  • Stated that the rule of primogeniture does not apply to Muslims and should not be used to interpret the Wakf Deed.
  • Emphasized that the Wakf Deed’s intent was to ensure that the senior-most male descendant would manage the Wakf.
  • Contended that Clause 3 of the Deed specifies that the senior-most male descendant in the line of succession holding an office of Mutawalli will be the Chief Mutawalli.
  • Highlighted that he was the senior-most male descendant after the death of Abdul Mueed and thus, rightfully took over as Chief Mutawalli.
  • Relied on the fact that the Wakif Mutawalli had appointed both his sons as Mutawallis, indicating an equal representation of both lines of succession.
  • Submitted that the 1973 Deed did not change the basic concept of Wakf management by the sons of Wakif Mutawalli and their successors, with the senior-most male descendant as the Chief Mutawalli.
  • Cited Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, arguing that primogeniture has no application amongst Muslims.
• Respondents (Abdul Majeed & Ors.):
  • Argued that the Division Bench correctly applied the principle of lineal primogeniture, as the Wakf Deed specifies that the senior-most male descendant in the line of succession should be the Chief Mutawalli.
  • Contended that the term ‘line of succession’ implies a direct lineal succession through the eldest son.
  • Stated that the 1948 deed sets out the “line of succession” of the Wakif Mutawalli but the amended deed does not contain any such or similar clause.
  • Asserted that the appointment of Abdul Majeed as Nazir (Secretary) in 1995 indicated that he was understood to be the second in line of succession.
  • Submitted that the Appellant’s claim was delayed and that he was not in control of the management of Hamdard at the time of filing the suit.
  • Relied on The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Syed Ahmad Badsha Sahib Bahadur, arguing that succession should be governed by lineal primogeniture in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.
  • Argued that the court should not grant interim mandatory relief that would create a new state of affairs.

The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellant lies in emphasizing the equal representation of both lines of succession and that the term “line of succession” does not mean the rule of primogeniture.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Who is the rightful successor to the position of Chief Mutawalli of Hamdard Laboratories, based on the interpretation of the Wakf Deed of 1948 as amended in 1973?

The Court also dealt with the sub-issue of whether the principle of lineal primogeniture applies in this case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s order and restoring the Single Judge’s order. The court held that the senior-most male descendant of the Wakif Mutawalli, who is also a Mutawalli, should be the Chief Mutawalli. The court rejected the application of the rule of lineal primogeniture in this case, stating that the primary question relating to the appointment of Chief Mutawalli has to be decided on the basis of the construction of the 1948 Deed and the amendments made in 1973 by the Wakif Mutawalli.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The plain reading of the Wakf Deed, particularly Clauses 1 and 3 of the 1973 amendments, which emphasized the senior-most male descendant as the Chief Mutawalli.
• The principle that the rule of primogeniture does not apply to Muslims under personal law, as established in Faqruddin v. Tajuddin.
• The understanding that the 1973 Deed was an amendment to the 1948 Deed and not a new document.
• The fact that the Wakif Mutawalli had nominated both his sons as Mutawallis, indicating an equal representation of both lines of succession.
• The need to interpret the document as a whole and not piecemeal, as per Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish.
• The understanding that the dispute was about management of the Wakf and not succession of property.

The Court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal interpretation (70%) than factual considerations (30%).

The court considered the argument that the principle of lineal primogeniture applies, but rejected it, stating that the rule of primogeniture is not applicable to Muslims. The court also considered the argument that the Appellant’s claim was delayed, but rejected it as well. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the Wakf Deed should be based on a holistic reading of the document and not on isolated clauses. The court also rejected the argument that the Appellant was disqualified due to pending criminal cases, as there was no conviction.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice Uday Umesh Lalit concurring. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the management of Wakfs and similar charitable organizations, as it clarifies that the line of succession should be determined based on the specific terms of the governing deed and not on the principle of primogeniture.

Key Takeaways

• The rule of primogeniture does not automatically apply to the succession of Mutawallis in Muslim Wakfs.
• The terms of the Wakf Deed are paramount in determining the line of succession for Chief Mutawalli.
• Senior-most male descendant holding the office of Mutawalli will be the Chief Mutawalli.
• Courts will interpret the Wakf Deed holistically and not piecemeal.
• The pendency of criminal cases does not disqualify a person from becoming a Mutawalli unless there is a conviction.
• Interim mandatory relief can be granted in appropriate cases if illegality is established.