{"id":19582,"date":"1955-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955"},"modified":"2016-09-06T16:14:13","modified_gmt":"2016-09-06T10:44:13","slug":"director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955","title":{"rendered":"Director Of Endowments … vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Director Of Endowments … vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955<\/div>\n
Author: Bose<\/div>\n
Bench: B.K. Mukherjee (Cj), V. Bose, B. Jagannadhadas, T.L.V. Aiyyar, S.J.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  19 of 1955\n\nPETITIONER:\nDIRECTOR OF ENDOWMENTS GOVERNMENT OF HYDERABAD & ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAKRAM ALI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/04\/1955\n\nBENCH:\nB.K. MUKHERJEE (CJ) & V. BOSE & B. JAGANNADHADAS & T.L.V. AIYYAR & S.J.\nIMAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
AIR 1956 SC 60<\/p>\n
Bose, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. The respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in
\nthe High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad asking for a ‘mandamus’ against
\nthe Director of Endowments of the Hyderabad Government. His prayer was that
\nthe Director be ordered to hand over the management and possession of a
\ncertain Dargah called the Dargah of Jehangir and Burhanud-din Piran and
\nalso the adjoining “hereditary lands” together with the income and profits,
\nto the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
2. The High Court granted the writ and the State of Hyderabad appeals.\n<\/p>\n
3. The respondent’s case is that the Dargah contains the tomb of one of his
\nancestors and that he and his ancestors have been the hereditary Sajjadas
\nand Mutawallis of the Dargah for generations. In the year 1914, when the
\nrespondent’s brother Syed Hussain was in possession, the Ecclesiastical
\nDepartment of the State stepped in and entrusted the supervision of the
\nDargah to one Azam Ali.\n<\/p>\n
He was removed in 1920 and the Ecclesiastical Department took over the
\nsupervision under a Firman of the Nizam which directed the Department to
\nsupervise the Dargah until the rights of the parties have been enquired
\ninto and decided. The respondent states that these rights were investigated
\nby the civil Courts. The matter went up to the High Court and the decision
\nall through was in his favour. Despite this he has not been given
\npossession and he seeks a ‘mandamus’ against the Director and asks that the
\nDirector be ordered to hand over the management and possession to him.\n<\/p>\n
4. The High Court granted his prayer, Shripat Rao, J. held that the Firman
\nof the Nizam ceased to be valid after the Constitution, therefore, the
\npossession of Government after that date was unlawful. He also held that
\nthe Ecclesiastical Department took possession from the respondent and so it
\nwas bound to hand the Dargah back to him. The other learned Judge Mir
\nSiadat Ali Khan, J. held that the Firman had served its purpose, therefore,
\nas the Dargah was not wakf property, the supervision of the Department
\nshould be brought to an end.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, as the respondent’s opponent was worsted in the civil
\nlitigation, and as the respondent had been out of possession for a
\ngeneration and so could be assumed to have learnt a lesson, he should be
\nplaced in possession,<\/p>\n
5. The learned Attorney-General, who appeared for the appellants challenged
\nthe accuracy of most of the facts on which the learned High Court Judges
\nfounded but we do not think it necessary to go into that. We were taken
\nthrough the documents in great detail by the respondent’s learned counsel
\nand he sought to establish from them his possession and that of his
\nancestors for generations, and also that the Ecclesiastical Department took
\nover possession from him.\n<\/p>\n
He also said that his descent from at least Syed Mir Saheb, his
\ngrandfather, was proved and that it was also established that Syed Mir
\nSaheb was a hereditary Sajjada of the Dargah. All this is, in our opinion,
\nbeside the point. The petition and the appeal can be disposed of very
\nshortly on another ground.\n<\/p>\n
6. We do not intend to say anything about the facts of title and possession
\nlest it prejudice future litigation, should there be any. We will assume,
\nwithout deciding, that all that the respondent says about his hereditary
\nrights and his possession is true. But whether he was in possession or not,
\nwhatever rights to possession he may have had were held in abeyance by the
\nFirman of 31-12-1920 and there is no subsequent order of the Civil Courts
\nremoving the bar.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, as he has no ‘present’ right to possession, no ‘mandamus’ can be
\nissued. We do not mean to imply that a writ would be the appropriate remedy
\nif and when the respondent can establish a right to possession: that is a
\nquestion that does not arise because in fact he has no present right to
\npossession.\n<\/p>\n
7. The facts that led up to the passing of the Firman are as follows.
\nDisputes about the right to possession and supervision of the Dargah seem
\nto have started about the year 1914, for it is the respondent’s case, as
\nset out in his petition, that the supervision was handed over to Azam Ali
\nby the Ecclesiastical Department in or about the year 1914. Further trouble
\narose in 1918 and a complaint seems to have been made to the First Taluqdar
\nabout undue police interference.\n<\/p>\n
This occasioned a letter from the Director of the Ecclesiastical Department
\nto the Home Secretary on 8-9-1918 in which the Director suggested that the
\nDargah and its income should be kept under Government supervision till one
\nor other of the various claimants established his right.\n<\/p>\n
8. On 27-1-1920 the same Director delivered what has been called a
\njudgment. He set out the disputes between the various claimants and said
\nthat as the dispute was about title it would have to be decided by a Court
\nof law and not by the Ecclesiastical Department of the State. He,
\ntherefore, directed that whoever was out of possession should go to the
\nCourts to establish his rights.\n<\/p>\n
Then he proceeded to consider who were in possession and held that
\nMahbubali, Syed Hussain (the respondent’s brother) and Mohammed Jahangir,
\n‘Mujawirs’, were in possession before they were dispossessed and so decided
\nthat these three persons should be given possession and that the person out
\nof possession should be directed to seek his remedy in a Court of law.\n<\/p>\n
9. The matter seems to have been sent up to the Nizam by the Ecclesiastical
\nDepartment because on 31-12-1920 he issued the following Firman in
\npursuance of a petition from that Department —\n<\/p>\n
“Pending enquiry of the case the said Maash need not be handed over to
\nanyone. Let it remain in the supervision of the Government. I should be
\ninformed of whatever the results of the enquiry establishes so that proper
\norders may be passed”.\n<\/p>\n
10. Now the Nizam was an absolute sovereign regarding all domestic matters
\nat that time and his word was law. It does not matter whether this be
\ncalled legislation or an executive act or a judicial determination because
\nthere is in fact no clear cut dividing line between the various functions
\nof an absolute ruler whose will is law. Whatever he proclaimed through his
\nFirmans had the combined effect of law and the decree of a court: see the
\njudgment of this Court in –‘Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum’,
\nAIR1955SC352<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the effect of this Firman was to deprive the respondent and all
\nother claimants of all rights to possession “pending enquiry of the case”.
\nExactly what this means is not clear but, taken in conjunction with the
\nsurrounding circumstances and with the decision of the Director of the
\nEcclesiastical Department to which we have referred, it is fair to assume
\nthat it means, pending the enquiry by the civil Courts about which the
\nDirector had twice spoken, that is to say, if there was a right to
\npossession it was held in abeyance till established by the civil Courts.\n<\/p>\n
11. Now, as we have said, the Nizam was at that time an absolute ruler and
\ncould do what he pleased. His will, as expressed in his Firman, was the law
\nof the land. Therefore, even if it be assumed that the respondent was in
\npossession, his rights to immediate possession, whatever they may have
\nbeen, were taken away and held in abeyance till he could establish them in
\nthe civil Courts.\n<\/p>\n
The question now arises whether this enured after the Constitution and
\nwhether the respondent’s right to possession, assuming he had any, revived
\nwhen the Constitution came into being. We are clear that the Constitution
\neffected no change.\n<\/p>\n
12. It was conceded that the Nizam had power to confiscate the property and
\nto take it away from the respondent ‘in toto’ and it was conceded that if
\nhe had done so the rights so destroyed would not have revived because the
\nConstitution only guarantees to a citizen such rights as he had at the date
\nit came into force; it does not alter them or add to them: all it
\nguarantees is that he shall not be deprived of such rights as he has except
\nin such ways as the Constitution allows. But if the Nizam could take away
\nevery vestige of right by a Firman he could equally take away a part of
\nthem and at the date of the passing of the Constitution the respondent
\nwould only have the balance of the rights left to him and not the whole,
\nfor what applies to the whole applies equally to the part.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, even if we accept all the respondent’s facts, the position would
\nstill be that at the date the Constitution came into force he had no right
\nto immediate possession; the utmost he had was a right to be restored to
\npossession if and when he established his rights in a Court of law.\n<\/p>\n
13. The High Court has relied on a decision of this Court in —
\n‘Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum’,<\/a> : [1953]4SCR404 ,
\nand has held that the Firmans of the Nizam that conflict with the
\nConstitution are ‘ultra vires’. But the learned Judges have failed to
\nobserve that in that case the Firman was issued after the Constitution and
\nnot before. But it was argued that even if that decision does not apply
\nthere are others that do and they hold that a law which would have been bad
\nif it had been passed after the Constitution ceases to have effect after
\nthat date.\n<\/p>\n
The decisions referred to were considered in — ‘Syed Qasim Razi v. State
\nof Hyderabad’,<\/a>  : 1953CriLJ862 and the law laid down by
\nthe majority was this (page 161).\n<\/p>\n
“The effect of Article 13(1) of the Constitution is not to obliterate the
\nentire operation of the inconsistent laws or to wipe them out altogether
\nfrom the statute book; for to do so will be to give them retrospective
\neffect which they do not possess. Such laws must be held to be valid for
\nall past transactions ‘and for enforcing rights and liabilities accrued
\nbefore the advent of the Constitution’ “.\n<\/p>\n
That, in our opinion concludes the matter.\n<\/p>\n
14. The only question that remains is whether the respondent has obtained a
\ndecision in the civil Courts confirming his right to get possession of the
\nDargah plus whatever else the Ecclesiastical Department took over under the
\nFirman. As we have already indicated, the matter was agitated in the civil
\nCourts. We need not trace the history of this litigation nor need we
\nexamine its fortunes from stage to stage. All we are concerned with is the
\nfinal judgment which was given by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
15. The suit was filed by Azam Ali who had been entrusted with the
\nsupervision of the Dargah by the Ecclesiastical Department in 1914 and who
\nwas removed in 1920. The present respondent Akram Ali was one of the
\ndefendants. When the matter reached the High Court the learned Judges found
\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n
“The fact of the plaintiff” (Azam Ali) “or his ancestors or any of the
\ndescendants of the saint of the Dargah being a Sajjada is not established
\nby the evidence. It is also not proved that there has been ‘any other
\nSajjada’ in respect of this Dargah and that the office of Sajjadagi has
\nbeen founded or continued there….in our opinion the Sajjadagi of none of
\nthe defendants is proved.\n<\/p>\n
In fact, for the very reasons as given by us above none of the defendants
\nis proved to be entitled to the office of Sajadagi. In the result, it is
\nnot proved that any one of the parties is entitled to the Sajjadagi. The
\nobjections to the evidence of the plaintiff apply equally to the evidence
\nof the defendants and when the very existence of Sajjadagi in the Dargah
\nSharif is not proved, no question remains as to who is the Sajjada
\n……….\n<\/p>\n
It cannot be gainsaid that the evidence of the plaintiff is stronger and
\nmore weighty than the evidence of the defendants…. ….If we were obliged
\nto hold any one of the parties as Sajjada on the evidence produced, our
\njudgment would have been in plaintiff’s favour”.\n<\/p>\n
The decisions of the lower Courts dismissing the plaintiff’s suit were
\naccordingly upheld.\n<\/p>\n
16. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent argued that this
\njudgment does not come in the way of his client because, even if he is not
\nthe Sajjada, that would make no difference. He insists that his client was
\nin possession at all relevant times, that is to say, he equates the
\nbrother’s possession to that of his client and contends that now that the
\ncivil litigation has ended unfavourably to his opponent Azam Ali, the
\nrespondent must be restored to possession.\n<\/p>\n
But that is not what the Firman says. The respondent’s rights, if any, at
\nthe date of the Constitution, and now, are that he must establish his right
\nto possession in a civil Court before he can ask to be put in possession.
\nThere is no decision of a civil Court declaring the respondent’s right to
\npossession, therefore, on that short ground he cannot get the writ he
\nseeks.\n<\/p>\n
17. The appeal is allowed. The decision of the High Court is set aside and
\nthe respondent’s petition for a writ is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
There will be no order about costs in any of the Courts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Director Of Endowments … vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955 Author: Bose Bench: B.K. Mukherjee (Cj), V. Bose, B. Jagannadhadas, T.L.V. Aiyyar, S.J. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 19 of 1955 PETITIONER: DIRECTOR OF ENDOWMENTS GOVERNMENT OF HYDERABAD & ORS. RESPONDENT: AKRAM ALI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/04\/1955 BENCH: B.K. MUKHERJEE (CJ) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDirector Of Endowments ... vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Director Of Endowments ... vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1955-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-06T10:44:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Director Of Endowments … vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T10:44:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955\"},\"wordCount\":2281,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955\",\"name\":\"Director Of Endowments ... vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T10:44:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Director Of Endowments … vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Director Of Endowments ... vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Director Of Endowments ... vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-06T10:44:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Director Of Endowments … vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955","datePublished":"1955-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T10:44:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955"},"wordCount":2281,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955","name":"Director Of Endowments ... vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T10:44:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-endowments-vs-akram-ali-on-22-april-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Director Of Endowments … vs Akram Ali on 22 April, 1955"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19582","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19582\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}