Dispute Over Mutawalli Appointment: Supreme Court Clarifies Waqf Succession Rules

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on an important case concerning the appointment of a Mutawalli (manager of a Waqf property) under Islamic law. The case involved the succession of the Mutawalli position for a Waqf property in Shillong, Meghalaya, created by Haji Elahi Baksh in 1936. The dispute centered around whether a descendant from the female line of the Waqif (founder) could be appointed as a joint Mutawalli.

Background of the Case

The case originated when Md. Abrar, the appellant, sought to be appointed as a joint Mutawalli of a Waqf property in Shillong. His claim was based on being the grandson of Kammu Mia, who was one of the original joint Mutawallis of the Waqf. The Meghalaya Board of Waqf and the existing Mutawalli, Md. Sulaiman, opposed his appointment, arguing that only male lineal descendants were eligible.

The Assam Waqf Board, which had jurisdiction at the time, had earlier appointed Md. Sulaiman as a joint Mutawalli with Kammu Mia in 1973. After Kammu Mia’s death in 1980, Md. Sulaiman became the sole Mutawalli. However, Kammu Mia had nominated his grandson, Md. Taiyab, as his successor in 1973, but the Board rejected this appointment because he was a descendant through the female line.

Arguments of the Appellant (Md. Abrar)

The appellant’s counsel presented the following key arguments:

• The Waqf deed of 1936 did not explicitly exclude descendants through the female line.
• The Waqif’s intention was to ensure that the family of both original Mutawallis—Md. Shafi and Kammu Mia—remained involved in managing the Waqf.
• Md. Sulaiman was unfairly blocking the appointment of Kammu Mia’s descendants while claiming succession rights for himself.
• The Waqf Tribunal and High Court misinterpreted Islamic law by excluding descendants through the female line without clear textual support.

Arguments of the Respondents

The Meghalaya Board of Waqf and Md. Sulaiman countered with the following arguments:

• The Waqf deed required that Mutawallis be chosen from the ‘family line’ of the Waqif, which should be interpreted as male lineal descendants.
• Islamic law prioritizes male descendants in inheritance and religious office succession.
• Once one of the original Mutawallis passed away, the surviving Mutawalli was to continue as the sole Mutawalli unless he nominated a successor.
• The High Court had already decided in an earlier case that Kammu Mia’s descendants could only be considered after Md. Shafi’s direct line was exhausted.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Interpretation of the Waqf Deed

The Supreme Court examined the language of the Waqf deed and noted that Clause 2 stated:

“On the death of either of the joint Mutawallis, the survivor shall be the sole Mutawalli for the time being and shall have power to nominate his successor from the family line of the Waqif.”

The Court found that the phrase ‘for the time being’ indicated that the surviving Mutawalli was not meant to be permanently sole but was required to appoint a successor.

2. Lineal vs. Cognatic Succession

The Court examined whether Islamic law universally excluded descendants through the female line from Mutawalli positions. It noted that in some cases, the term ‘family line’ has been interpreted broadly to include such descendants. The Court referenced past judgments that recognized Waqf succession rights for maternal grandsons where the Waqf deed did not expressly prohibit them.

3. Previous High Court Rulings

The Supreme Court clarified that an earlier High Court ruling had observed that Kammu Mia’s family should remain part of the Waqf’s administration. However, the High Court’s later decision misinterpreted this by holding that only direct male descendants were eligible.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and held:

“The Waqif intended that the descendants of both Md. Shafi and Kammu Mia should continue managing the Waqf property. There is no express exclusion of female-line descendants, and in the absence of such exclusion, the interpretation should favor continuity in Waqf administration.”

The Court directed the Meghalaya Board of Waqf to appoint a suitable candidate from Kammu Mia’s descendants, including those from the female line, as a joint Mutawalli.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for Waqf administration and Islamic inheritance law in India. Key takeaways include:

• Waqf deeds must be interpreted in line with the founder’s intentions rather than rigidly applying inheritance rules.
• Unless explicitly excluded, descendants through the female line may be eligible for Mutawalli positions.
• Waqf Boards must ensure fair succession practices to prevent monopolization of religious trust properties.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that Waqf properties should remain within family administration while adhering to the founder’s wishes.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies succession principles in Islamic religious trusts and ensures that Waqf governance remains transparent and fair.

Petitioner Name: Md. Abrar.
Respondent Name: Meghalaya Board of Waqf & Another.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Shillong, Meghalaya.
Judgment Date: 26-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Md. Abrar vs Meghalaya Board of W Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category