TPA Jama Masjid Vs. Koci Manindra Deviah and other, AIR 1962, SC 807

 

Leading Case: Jama Masjid Vs. Koci Manindra Deviah & Others, AIR 1962 SC 807

Facts of the Case:

1. The case revolved around a dispute concerning the transfer of property that belonged to a religious institution, specifically a Jama Masjid.
2. The plaintiff, Jama Masjid, claimed ownership of certain properties and challenged their transfer.
3. The defendants, Koci Manindra Deviah and others, contended that the transfer was valid and binding.

Issue:

The main legal issue before the Supreme Court of India was whether the property belonging to the Jama Masjid, being a religious and charitable endowment, could be transferred by a private individual or authority.

Law Laid Down:

1. Application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

   • The court held that property dedicated to a religious or charitable purpose cannot be transferred by private individuals unless the transfer is in accordance with the doctrine of necessity or has legal sanction.
   • Such properties are held in trust for religious and charitable purposes, and therefore, they do not fall under the domain of purely private ownership.

2. Doctrine of Inalienability of Religious Endowments:

   • Properties dedicated to religious institutions (such as mosques, temples, or trusts) cannot be alienated unless:
     • There is an urgent necessity or
     • The transfer is for benefit of the institution and is approved by legal authorities.

3. Role of Mutawalli (Trustee) in Transfer of Property:

   • A mutawalli (manager of a religious endowment) does not have absolute ownership rights over endowed property.
   • They act as custodians and cannot dispose of the property unless permitted under the law or for a necessary legal cause.
   • The transfer in this case was found to be unauthorized.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jama Masjid, stating that the transfer of the property was invalid as it was a religious endowment. The judgment reinforced that properties dedicated to religious institutions are protected under trust law principles and cannot be alienated unless expressly allowed under necessity or statutory provisions.

Significance of the Case:

• This case strengthened the legal protection of religious and charitable properties under Indian law.
• It clarified the limitations of a mutawalli’s power in dealing with endowment properties.
• The judgment serves as a guiding principle for similar cases related to religious property disputes.