Supreme Court Clarifies Mutawalli Succession in Wakf Property Dispute: Syeda Nazira Khatoon vs. Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 978
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a mutawalli (manager of a Wakf property) transfer their position to someone else through a trust deed, especially when the original Wakf deed specifies a line of succession? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent case concerning a Wakf in West Bengal. The Court also examined whether the term “putro poutradi krome” in a Wakf deed includes female descendants in the line of succession for mutawalliship. The three-judge bench, comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Ajay Rastogi, delivered the judgment, with the opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a Wakf (a religious endowment under Muslim law) created in 1913 by Abdur Rahim for a Khankhah (a religious institution). The original mutawalli (manager) of the Wakf was Syed Obaidullah Baghdadi Shah. The Wakf deed specified that the mutawalliship would pass to his “putro poutradi krome” (a term in Bengali), which is a point of contention in this case.

Upon the death of the original mutawalli, his son, Syed Gyasuddin Ahmed Baghdadi, became the sajjadanashin (spiritual head) and mutawalli. In 1977, Gyasuddin Ahmed died, and his eldest son, Syed Badruddin Ahmed, became the sajjadanashin and mutawalli. Syed Badruddin Ahmed died in 1992, leaving behind his wife, Nazira Khatoon, and daughters, but no male heirs.

Nazira Khatoon applied to be appointed as the mutawalli, based on a trust deed created by her husband in 1984, which appointed her as the mutawalli after his death. The Wakf Board initially approved her appointment in 1995. However, a dispute arose when Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi, the grandson of Gyasuddin Ahmed, objected to her appointment, arguing that it violated the original Wakf deed, which he claimed only allowed male descendants to be mutawalli.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Wakf Board initially appointed Nazira Khatoon as the mutawalli in 1995. However, after objections from Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi, the High Court directed the Wakf Board to reconsider the appointment. The Wakf Board then reversed its decision in 1999, stating that the original Wakf deed only allowed male lineal descendants to be mutawalli, and appointed Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi instead.

Nazira Khatoon challenged this decision before the Wakf Tribunal, which ruled in her favor in 2006, stating that the Wakf Board did not have the power to review its earlier decision.

Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi then filed a revision application before the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision in 2008, holding that the original Wakf deed should be given utmost importance. The High Court interpreted “putro poutradi krome” to mean that only sons and grandsons could be mutawalli, and also held that a mutawalli cannot transfer their right to another person through a trust deed.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by principles of Mohammedan Law relating to Wakfs. A Wakf is a religious endowment where the property is dedicated to God, and the mutawalli acts as a manager of the property. The key legal principles include:

• The mutawalli is a manager and does not have ownership rights over the Wakf property. The Supreme Court in Ahmed G.H. Ariff and others v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta [(1969) 2 SCC 471] held that, “the moment a wakf is created, all rights of property pass out of the Wakif and vest in the Almighty. Therefore, the Mutawalli has no right in the property belonging to the wakf. He is not a trustee in the technical sense, his position being merely that of a superintendent or a manager.”
• A mutawalli cannot transfer their office to another person unless expressly authorized by the wakf deed. This is supported by Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, which states, “A mutawalli has no power to transfer the office to another, unless such a power is expressly conferred upon him by the founder…”
• The succession of mutawalli should be as per the intention of the wakif (the person who created the wakf), as expressed in the wakf deed.

Arguments

The Appellant (Syeda Nazira Khatoon, represented by her legal heir) argued that:

• The term “putro poutradi krome” should be interpreted to include all descendants, both male and female, and not just sons and grandsons.
• The Bangla-to-English translation of the wakf deed indicates that the office of mutawalli would go from generation after generation of the original mutawalli.
• The term “putro poutradi” means future generations, posterity, or descendants, and is not specific to male descendants.
• The last mutawalli had the right to appoint his wife as the mutawalli through the trust deed.

The Respondent (Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi) argued that:

• The term “putro poutradi” should be understood as sons and grandsons only, based on the individual meaning of “putro” which means son.
• The last mutawalli was aware of the restriction of mutawalliship to male descendants and wrongly executed the trust deed.
• The trust deed appointing Nazira Khatoon as mutawalli was against the express terms of the wakf deed.
• Since Nazira Khatoon died during the pendency of the appeal, the right to sue does not survive in her legal representatives.

The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellant was their reliance on the broad interpretation of “putro poutradi krome” to include female descendants, which was supported by a dictionary meaning.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the mutawalli can transfer his office to another person by creating a trust deed, despite the existence of a wakf deed providing a line of succession to the office. Consequently, it is to be seen whether the trust deed in favour of Nazira Khatoon is valid.
2. Whether the female descendants of the last mutawalli (including the Appellant herein) fall within the purview of the term “putro poutradi korme” as stated in the wakf deed, so as to qualify as a mutawalli of the wakf estate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Ahmed G.H. Ariff and others v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta [(1969) 2 SCC 471]: The Court relied on this case to establish the nature of a mutawalli’s role as a manager without ownership rights.
• Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law: The Court used this to support the principle that a mutawalli cannot transfer their office unless expressly authorized.
• Badagara Jumayath Palli Dharas Committee v. Peedikayalakath Ummerkutty Haji [AIR 2002 Ker 56]: The Court used this case to support the view that there cannot be any transfer of mutawalliship.
• Abdul Latheef v. K.P. Abdurahiman [(2014) 1 KLJ 329]: The Court used this case to support the view that a mutawalli cannot assign or transfer his office to anyone.
• Asaf A.A. Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law: The Court used this to support the principle that a mutawalli cannot transfer their office.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The intention of the wakif (the person who created the wakf) as expressed in the original wakf deed.
• The established principles of Mohammedan Law regarding the role and powers of a mutawalli.
• The interpretation of the term “putro poutradi krome” to mean sons and grandsons, based on the individual meaning of the word “putro.”
• The understanding that a mutawalli is a manager and does not have the power to transfer their office unless expressly authorized by the wakf deed.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretation and principles, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of a strict interpretation of the Wakf deed and established principles of Mohammedan Law. The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The mutawalli does not have the power to transfer his office unless such power is expressly given to him by the wakif in the wakf deed.
• The succession of the office of mutawalli should be in accordance with the intention of the wakif who created the wakf.
• The term “putro poutradi krome” was interpreted to mean sons and grandsons, and not female descendants.

The Court quoted from the judgment, “the mutawalli does not have a general power to assign or transfer his office to another person, unless he is given such powers by the wakf deed itself.” It also stated that, “the succession of the office of mutawalli should be in accordance with the intention of the wakif who created the wakf, and the same cannot be subverted through any other document contrary to the intention of the wakif.” And finally, “the original wakf deed did not envisage female descendants to fall within the purview of these words and hold the office of mutawalli.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The three-judge bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• A mutawalli cannot transfer their office through a trust deed or any other instrument unless the original wakf deed explicitly allows it.
• Succession to the office of mutawalli must adhere to the intention of the wakif as expressed in the wakf deed.
• The term “putro poutradi krome” in a wakf deed, unless explicitly stated otherwise, generally refers to male descendants (sons and grandsons) and may exclude female descendants.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the original terms of a wakf deed and the limitations on a mutawalli’s powers.

Directions

No specific directions were provided by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a mutawalli cannot transfer their office through a trust deed unless expressly authorized by the wakf deed, and that the term “putro poutradi krome” generally refers to male descendants only. This judgment clarifies the limitations on the powers of a mutawalli and reinforces the importance of adhering to the original terms of a wakf deed. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but reinforces it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling against the appellant. The Court held that the mutawalli cannot transfer his office through a trust deed and that the term “putro poutradi krome” in the wakf deed does not include female descendants. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the original terms of a wakf deed and the limitations on a mutawalli’s powers, ensuring that the intention of the wakif is upheld.