Property retained for private family trust/waqf-alal-aulad without public dedication cannot be notified as public waqf.

The plaintiffs (revision petitioners) challenged a Waqf Board notification dated 03.11.2009, which registered their family property as a public Waqf under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

The dispute originated from a 1910 partition deed (Ex.A1) and a 1951 partition deed (Ex.A2) that set aside 'D' schedule properties for a mosque and certain ceremonies.

Previously, the High Court in W.P.No.26252 of 2008 had set aside an earlier registration and directed the Board to conduct a proper enquiry.

The Board subsequently passed a resolution on 03.11.2009 reaffirming the public Waqf status, which the petitioners challenged in O.S.No.23 of 2022 before the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the suit, leading to this revision petition.

Whether the subject property constitutes a public Waqf or a private family trust (Waqf-alal-aulad) based on the construction of the 1910 and 1951 partition deeds.

Whether the suit filed in 2015 was barred by the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

Whether the Waqf Board’s resolution dated 03.11.2009 complied with the statutory requirement of a speaking order following a quasi-judicial enquiry under Section 40 of the Act.

The court applied Section 6 of the Waqf Act, 1995 regarding the limitation for filing suits, read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

It relied on Section 40 of the Waqf Act, which mandates a quasi-judicial enquiry and a reasoned order to determine the character of a property.

Under Mahomedan Law, as elucidated in *Sri Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments* (1981) and *Mohammad v. Mohammed Beke* (1996), a public Waqf requires an express or implied dedication and the complete divesting of ownership by the founder for public religious/charitable objects.

Conversely, a *Waqf-alal-aulad* (private Waqf) exists where the usufruct is reserved for the maintenance of the founder’s family, only reverting to public use upon the extinction of the lineage.

The Court found that the Waqf Board failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 40, ignoring the High Court's prior direction for a detailed enquiry.

On the merits, the Court observed that the Tribunal misread the 1910 partition deed by omitting the crucial word "ek;Kila" (our/ours), which indicated the family's private ownership.

The documents (Ex.A1 and Ex.A2) showed no complete dedication to God; instead, the surplus income was expressly reserved for the family members after performing specific ancestral ceremonies.

Following the ratio in *Larabsha Darga Panruti* (2007), the Court reasoned that since the public was not shown to have a right of worship and the family retained management and usufruct, the entity was at best a private trust.

Regarding limitation, the Court held the suit was maintainable because a Division Bench of the High Court had specifically granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal and directed the invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The Court set aside the Waqf Tribunal’s judgment dated 11.10.2022 and the Waqf Board’s notification dated 03.11.2009, declaring the registration null and void.

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, thereby restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' possession.