JUDGMENT
T. Venkatadri, J.
1. This second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that the proceedings dated 9th February, 1959, and 26th March 1959, of the respondent State Wakf Board, requiring the appellant to have the suit Durga and its properties registered, to accounts, budgets and returns and threatening prosecution and imposition of penalties otherwise under the Wakf Act are void illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. Both the Courts below have held that the Wakf Board has got jurisdiction to ask the appellant to have the suit Durga registered and to send the accounts and budgets. Hence the Second Appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff. It is necessary to state a few facts that led to the filling of the suit.
3. It is common case that the properties set out in the plaint and situate at Killai,. Chidambaram Taluk, were originally granted by the Nawab to the predessor -in-title of the appellant. There were other disputes with which we are not concerned now. Finally, a scheme was framed in O.S. No. 10 of 1909, on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayuram, according to which trustees were appointed for the suit properties and provisions were made for their management. According to the scheme, the appellant has been sending the budget on the 15th March of every year and had the accounts audited by an Auditor appointed by the Court. The appellant contends that when a vlaidly framed scheme is in force, the Wakf Board cannot take proceedings under the Wakf Act and call upon the Muthavalli to get the Durga and its properties registered and to send accounts and budgets and returns to it.
4. The Wakf Act has been introduced for the purpose of securing better administration and supervision of Wakf properties. The Act provides that the State Government may appoint for the State a Commissioner of Wakfs for the purpose of making a survey of Wakf properties existing in the State at the date of the commencement of the Act. The Act has also provided for the establishment of Wakf Board. Under Section 15 of the Act, the general superintendence of all wakfs, in the State vests in the Board, and it is the duty of the Board to exercise its powers under the Act as to ensure that the wakf under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purpose for which such wakfs were created or intended. It is conceded that the suit Durga and its properties are Wakf properties. It is not in dispute that there is a scheme in regard to these properties. It is also common case that the scheme was in force even prior to the coming into force of the Wakf Act. Nonetheless, the suit properties will be covered by the Act, since the Wakf Act applies to all wakf whether created before or after the commencement of the Act. By virtue of the power conferred on it, the Wakf Board has directed the appellant to have the Durga and its properties registered under the Act and submit accounts. It is true that under the Scheme framed by the Court, the appellant is under the obligation to file the budget, get it audited by an Auditor appointed by the Court and then get it passed by Court. Because the appellant is asked now to get the properties registered under the Wakf Act and submit accounts to the Wakf Board, he contends that he is asked to send accounts to two bodies exercising parallel jurisdiction over the same wakf properties.
5. The contention of the appellant cannot be sustained. Once the statutory Act has come into force for the purpose of securing better administration and supervision of wakf properties and it creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner, the general rule is that that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. The general superintendence of all Wakf vests in the Board and the Board’s duty is to do exercise its powers as to ensure that the wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered. By virtue of this power conferred upon the Board, it can call upon the Muthawalli to submit the accounts and budget to it. As far as the administration of wakf properties are concerned, the civil Court should not deal with the matter in view of the statutory provisions. In Narayanamurthi v. Achayya Sastrulu (1924) 47 M.L.J. 714 and 718, this Court observed:
It is far from desirable that Courts should assume to themselves (he continued supervision of institutions, for the management of which they are called upon to frame schemes. In fact, under such scheme the Courts of Law constitutes themselves in some manner as temple committees and the whole burden of such functions for all time is thrown upon the Courts. It is very undesirable that the Courts should be burdened with such tasks. Even in the interests of institutions themselves it is doubtful if such provisions are calculated to promote their improvement or efficiency.
6. In State of Madras v. Sri Mahalingaswami Devasthanam (1957) 1 M.L.J. 350 : I.L.R. (1957) Mad. 752 dealing with the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, a Division Bench of this Court has observed that the power to call for a budget, though vested in the Court under the Scheme, vests in the Commissioner after the commencement of the Act and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to call for or approve a budget, and that after the coming into force of the Act, the trustee should submit the budget only to the Commissioner and not to the Court. In Mayadhar v. Orissa Boad of Waffs , dealing with an application by the Muthavalli for sanction of lease, the Court observed that after the passing of the Wakf Act, 1954. the Board had been given specific powers for grant of lease for a term exceeding three years, that such a provision barred the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to take cognizance of an application asking for sanction of such leases and that it was open to the parties to make such an application to the Board itself which alone was competent to accord sanction.
7. On a review of the law on the subject, it is quite clear that it is the duty of the Muthawalli to obey the directions of the Wakf Board in the matter of getting the suit properties registered under the Act and submitting accounts etc., to it, notwithstanding the fact that there is a scheme framed by the civil Court in force. No doubt the appellant has filed the present suit for a declaration that the Wakf Board has no such jurisdiction. But since I have concurred with the finding of the Courts below that the Wakf Board has got jurisdiction to call upon the Muthavalli to submit the accounts to it, he need not file any returns to the civil Court under the scheme decree.
8. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. No leave.