9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Wakf Act (29 of 1954). Section 57(1) states-- "In every suit or proceeding relating to title to wakf property.......the Court shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding." (2-A) Under Section 57(3) "In the absence of a notice under sub-section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the Court in this behalf". (3) The following events and dates, furnishing the background of the litigation, are essential for a proper understanding of the ground of controversy. The dispute related to a wakf known as Rustom Saheed Durga Wakf in Sirudayur village, Tiruchirapalli district. Admittedly the wakf was included in the list of wakfs published by the Wakf Board in the 'Fort St. George Gazette, dated 10-2-1958. A certain Kandaswami Iyer filed O.S. No. 616 of 1949 and O.S. No. 12 of 1950 in the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli, for recovery of possession of two properties, S. Nos. 131/3 and 132 of Sirudayur village, and these actions were resisted by the Durga on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified as the period of limitation in S. 57(3) that we have extracted, and set forth earlier, the Wakf Board instituted C.M.P. No. 6252 of 1964 under S. 57(3) of Act 29 of 1964. The legal representative of the original plaintiff strenuously contended before the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) that on two main grounds this civil miscellaneous petition should fail. The first was that whatever might be said about the character of the two original suits, namely, O.S. No. 616 of 1949 and O.S. No. 12 of 1950, the subsequent suit O.S. No. 432 of 1956 could not be regarded as "a suit or proceeding relating to title to property" within the meaning of these words in Sec. 57(1). On the contrary, the suit or proceeding related to the nature of the decree in the two earlier suits, as fraudulent and collusive, and sought to establish that character. The title to the properties was not directly in issue in the subsequent suit O.S. No. 432 of 1956 and the suit on the relevant proceedings did not thereby violate S. 57(1) because no notice was issued to the Wakf Board. (6) The second ground was that, in any event, the application was barred by limitation. Sri P. Sherifuddin, learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are words of comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance, depending on the context. They are not words of restrictive content and ought not to be so construed. The matter has come up for judicial determination in more than one instance. The case in Compagnie Financiee Due Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co., (1882) 11 QBD 55, it of great interest, on this particular aspect and the judgment of Brett, L.J., expounds the interpretation of Order 31, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1875, in the context of the phrase "material to any matter in question in the action". Brett, L.J., observed that this could both be direct as well as indirect in consequence and according to the learned Judge the test was this (at page 63)-- " a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, which may have either of these consequences." (9) In other words, applying the test of the decision to the present situation of fact, if allowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) may be extremely inconvenient; it may even involve further complications and disturb a state of rights that has not been challenged since the year 1952. But this consequence of the situation of law cannot be shirked. So long as the law is clear, it is our duty to give effect to the intent and purport of the section of the law as it stands, irrespective of the impact or consequence of this finding on the rights of parties. (13) After very careful consideration, we are convinced that the view of the learned Judge cannot be supported, that the knowledge of Sri Sherfuddin, counsel for the representatives of the Durga in S.A. No. 965 of 1961, disposed of on 2-4-1964 is knowledge of the Chairman of the State Wakf Board, and as a further step, that such knowledge on his part will fix the Wakf Board itself with the knowledge of these relevant proceedings. For a variety of reasons which appear to us to merit acceptance at our hands, we are unable to agree with the learned Judge in thinking that this issue can at all be approached from the perspective of 'piercing the veil' of corporate personality. The learned Judge has quoted two extracts in support of his view. One of them is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction in which he is not concerned as such director or officer or if it relates to a matter which he is not bound to and does not disclose " (16) The analogy drawn from texts, in which the Courts have pierced the veil of corporate personality in order to prevent fraud, or to prevent the corporation from evading its plain statutory obligations to citizens, is quite misleading, and cannot, in our view, be pressed into the present context at all. (17) Apart from the authority that we have cited, we are further strengthened in this by the observations of Mukharji, J., in Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal v. Ayesa Bibi, . The facts of that case were no doubt quite different and the main point involved was also different one. In that case there was a compromise decree between the parties after the Commissioner of Wakfs who was a party before the Court, had been struck off the record by these parties, and the compromise was arrived at after the exclusion of the Commissioner from the array of parties. But one observation of the learned Judge appears to us to be significant in the present context. That is the observation at p. 72, para. 18 to this effect:- "Suppose in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
