Supreme Court Upholds Customary Right to Mutawalli Post in Mosque Management Dispute

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 1, 2019, delivered a crucial verdict on the customary right to the office of mutawalli in the management of the Andrott Jumah Mosque in Lakshadweep. The case, Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyappura Pookoya & Anr. v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya & Ors., examined whether the post of mutawalli (caretaker of the mosque) was a hereditary position vested in the Pattakal family.

The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, confirming that the office of mutawalli had been customarily held by the Pattakal family for generations. It rejected the appellants’ claims that the mosque should be managed by a public committee instead of a hereditary mutawalli.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose between members of the Pattakal family and representatives of other residents of Andrott Island over the right to manage the Jumah Mosque. The respondents claimed that their family had historically been responsible for the administration of the mosque, as descendants of Saint Ubaidulla, who was the first mutawalli.

On the other hand, the appellants contended that the mosque had been historically managed by a committee of local residents and that the mutawalli’s position should not be restricted to one family.

Findings of the Waqf Tribunal

The Waqf Tribunal ruled against the respondents, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Pattakal family had an exclusive hereditary right to the office of mutawalli. The Tribunal also declared a compromise decree passed in 1981 as void, since the required legal procedures under the Civil Procedure Code were not followed.

High Court Decision

The Kerala High Court overturned the Waqf Tribunal’s ruling, holding that there was no evidence to suggest that anyone other than the Pattakal family had served as mutawalli at any point in history. The High Court found that the family’s customary right to manage the mosque was well established and could not be overridden by claims of public management.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyappura Pookoya & Others)

The appellants put forward the following arguments:

• No Exclusive Right to Mutawalli: The office of mutawalli should be open to all members of the local Muslim community rather than being reserved for a single family.
• Historical Misinterpretation: The appellants argued that the evidence used to support the respondents’ claim was based on legends and unverified historical texts.
• Compromise Decree Was Valid: The appellants claimed that a decree passed in 1981 had already determined that mosque management should be carried out by an elected committee.
• Public Policy Argument: They contended that allowing hereditary succession in a public waqf was against public policy.

Respondent’s Arguments (Pattakal Cheriyakoya & Others)

The respondents countered these claims, stating:

• Continuous Management by Pattakal Family: Historical records, including government gazettes and official documents, consistently recognized their family as the traditional mutawallis.
• Legality of Customary Rights: Muslim law allows hereditary succession in the office of mutawalli if established by long-standing custom.
• Void Nature of Compromise Decree: The respondents argued that the 1981 decree was illegal as it was passed without the necessary approval of the Waqf Board.
• Judicial Precedents: They cited legal precedents supporting hereditary succession in waqf management.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court extensively examined the principles of customary rights under Muslim law and made several key observations:

1. Customary Succession in Mutawalli Office

The Court noted that while Islamic law does not automatically grant hereditary rights to the post of mutawalli, exceptions exist where a family has continuously managed a waqf for generations. It held:

“A person claiming a customary right to succeed to the office of mutawalli would have to show that the waqif intended for the office to devolve through a practice of hereditary succession.”

2. Validity of Historical Records

The Court relied on historical documents, including the Lakshadweep Gazette, the Register of Waqfs, and records from the 19th and early 20th centuries, which confirmed the Pattakal family’s long-standing role as mutawallis.

3. Rejection of Public Policy Argument

The Court rejected the argument that hereditary succession violates public policy, stating:

“The presence of a hereditary mutawalli does not divest a waqf of its public character, as the administration remains subject to supervision by the Waqf Board.”

4. Dismissal of Compromise Decree

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the 1981 compromise decree was invalid as it was passed without the Waqf Board’s approval.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s ruling, confirming that:

• The Pattakal family holds a customary right to the office of mutawalli of the Jumah Mosque.
• The compromise decree of 1981 was void and unenforceable.
• The public waqf remains subject to the supervision of the Waqf Board.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for waqf management and customary rights:

• Recognition of Customary Rights: The decision reaffirms that customary hereditary succession can be legally upheld in waqf administration.
• Strengthening Legal Clarity: The judgment provides clear guidelines on proving customary rights under Muslim law.
• Supervision of Waqf Board: The ruling emphasizes that hereditary mutawallis remain accountable to the Waqf Board.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyappura Pookoya v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya sets an important precedent in waqf law, affirming that hereditary management of mosques can be upheld if supported by a long-standing custom. By clarifying the role of the Waqf Board in overseeing public waqfs, the judgment ensures a balance between tradition and legal oversight in religious endowments.

Petitioner Name: Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyappura Pookoya & Anr..
Respondent Name: Pattakal Cheriyakoya & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Lakshadweep.
Judgment Date: 01-08-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Aliyathammuda Beetha vs Pattakal Cheriyakoya Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 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