{"id":88612,"date":"1962-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962"},"modified":"2015-02-13T11:42:55","modified_gmt":"2015-02-13T06:12:55","slug":"sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962","title":{"rendered":"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 309, \t\t 1963 SCR (3) 623<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHEIKH ABDUL KAYUM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMULLA ALIBHAI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/08\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR  309\t\t  1963 SCR  (3) 623\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1976 SC1476\t (1)\n\n\nACT:\nTrust-Properties  vested in trustees-Trustees  creating\t new\nbody-Entrustment  of  magement and properties to  new  body-\nLegality  of-Abdication\t and delegation by  trustees-If\t and\nwhen permissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  1909  six  persons\tcreated\t the  Burhanpur\t Trust\t for\ngoverning,  managing  and  administering the  affairs  of  a\nschool\tin Burhanpur.  Under the Trust deed 18 persons\twere\nappointed  as  the trustees and all  movable  and  immovable\nproperties  connected with the school were vested  in  them.\nClause\t5  of  the Trust deed  empowered  the  trustees\t \"to\nappoint\t new trustees from time to time\" and to frame  rules\nand regulations for the benefit and efficient running of the\nschool.\t  In  1917  the Hakimia Society was  formed  by\t the\ntrustees  for  the  purpose of running\tthe  school  and  12\npersons were named members of the governing council in which\nall  the properties of the school were vested.\t Since\tthen\nten members of the governing council have been administering\nthe  properties in respect of which a trust was\t created  in\n1909.\tA suit under s.92 Code of Civil Procedure was  filed\nfor  removal  of the ten members of the\t governing  council,\ninter  alia, on the ground the Hakimia Society and  the\t ten\nmembers\t of  the  governing council  had  not  been  validly\nappointed trustees of the trust properties.\nHeld,  that the ten members of the governing council of\t the\nHakimia Society were not validity appointed trustees of\t the\nTrust  properties  and were liable to be  removed  from\t the\nmanagement thereof, The trustees of the Burhanpur Trust\t had\nno power to create another body of men as trustees in  their\nown  place.  Trustees who have once entered upon  the  trust\ncannot renounce their duties and liabilities except with the\npermission  of\tthe  Court  or\twith  the  consent  of\t the\nbeneficiaries or by the authority of the trust deed  itself.\nNor  can  trustees delegate their offices or  any  of  their\nfunctions  except in some specified cases.  In\tthe  present\ncase there was delegation of all the powers and functions of\nthe trustees amounting to abdication in favour of a new body\nof  men.   The trustees sought to divest themselves  of\t the\nproperties vested in them by the trust deed and to vest them\nin the\n624\nnew  body.  Such abdication could not be  permitted.   There\nwas  nothing  in.  the\ttrust deed  which  allowed  such  an\nabdication  and substitution of trustees., The provision  in\ncl. 5 for appointment of new trustees only permitted the old\ntrustees to add to their number.  Nor did the power to frame\nrules and regulations authorise the trustees to give up\t the\nmanagement  of\tthe  school themselves or  to  divest  them.\nselves of the properties entrusted to them by the trust deed\nand vest them in other persons.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 466 and 407
\nof 1960.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave ‘from the judgment and decree dated
\nOctober\t 30,  1956,  of the former Nagpur  High\t Court\t(Now
\nMadhya Pradesh’ in F. A. Nos. 79 and 95 of 1949.
\nC.   K.\t Daphtary,  Solicitor  general\tof  India,   J.\t  B.
\nDadachanji,  O.\t C.  Mathur and\t Ravinder  Narain,  for\t the
\nappellants (in C. A. No. 406\/60) and Respondent Nos, 12\t and
\n14 to 17 (in C.A. No. 407\/60).<\/span>
\nC.   K.\t  Daphtary,   Solicitor\t General  of   India,\tJ.B.
\nDadachanji, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and P.L. Vohra, for
\nthe appellants (in C. A. No. 407\/60) and respondent Nos.   1
\nto 3 (in C. A. No. 406\/60).\n<\/p>\n
B.   Sen  and I. N. Shroff, for respondent Nos. 5 and 6\t (in
\nC. A. No. 406\/60) and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in C. A.\t No.
\n407 of 60).\n<\/p>\n
1962.\tAugust 17.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nDAS  GUPTA,  J.-This unfortunate litigation  over  a  school
\nwhich  was  started sixty years ago is one  of\tthe  unhappy
\nconsequences  of  a feud that raised its ugly  head  in\t the
\nDaudi  Bohra  Community\t many years  ago.   The\t school\t was
\nstarted\t at Burhanpur by certain members of the Daudi  Bohra
\nCommunity  of  Burhanpur  in the year 1902.   It  was  named
\nMadrasai Faize Hakimia and its object was to
\n 625<\/span>
\nimpart religious and secular education to boys of the  Daudi
\nBohra  Community.  Funds were collected for the\t purpose  of
\nthe  school  from  the members of  that\t community  for\t the
\nmaintenance of the school.  In the year 1908 English classes
\nwere  added to the school and in 1911 it was raised  to\t the
\nstatus of a High School under the name “Madrasai Hakimia and
\nCoronation  High School”.  Some time before this on May\t 24,
\n1909 one Daudi Bohra of Surat of the name of Abdul  Hussain-
\nAbdullali  Faizullabhai\t Muchhala  made\t a  was\t of  certain
\nproperties  in Bombay for the benefit and advantage of\tthis
\nschool\tat Burhanpur.  For the management of this, trust  he
\nappointed  as  trustees 12 gentlemen whom  he  mentioned  as
\npersons\t who  had  already been appointed  trustees  of\t the
\nschool.\t  Only\ta few months after this another\t trust\tcame
\ninto existence for the benefit of the same school, by a deed
\nexecuted by six\t    persons,   all  Daudi  Bohras  and\t all
\nbelonging to   Burhanpur  describing themselves as  managers
\nof the school.\tThey created by the deed “Waqf and trust  of
\ntheir properties” which were mentioned in detail in the body
\nof  the\t deed.\tEighty persons,\t including  themselves\twere
\nnamed  as  the\ttrustees.   It\tis  further  stated  by\t the
\nexecutants  of\tthe  deed that\tall  movable  and  immovable
\nproperties  connected  with the school shall vest  in  these
\ntrustees.  It is provided in the deed that the trustees hall
\nbe entitled to govern, manage and administer the affairs  of
\nthe  school  and shall have the power of framing  rules\t and
\nregulations from time to time for the benefit and  efficient
\nrunning\t of the school ; and also have the power to  appoint
\nnew trustees from time to time in accordance with such rules
\nand regulations.  These trustees managed the school and also
\nthe  properties\t belonging,  to\t the  school  including\t the
\nproperties of which waqf was made in its favour by the trust
\ndeed  of September 15, 1909 without any trouble\t till  March
\n1917.  In the course of such management
\n626<\/span>
\nsome  of the original trust properties were  converted\tinto
\nnew  properties by the trustees with the help of  additional
\ndonations   received  from  members  of\t the   Daudi   Bohra
\nCommunity.  Trouble started in 1917 when some members of the
\nCommunity  started  declaring that Mullaji  Taher  Saifuddin
\nSaheb  who, according to the main body of the Community\t was
\nthe Dai-ul-Mutalaq was not a Dai-ul-Mutalaq.  About the same
\ntime four out of the 18 who were appointed by the trust deed
\nof  September  15, 1909 joined three other  members  of\t the
\nDaudi Bohra Community of Burhanpur to form a society by\t the
\nname  of “Madrasai Hakimia & Coronation Society”,  the\tmain
\npurpose\t of which was to run the Hakimia &  Coronation\tHigh
\nand Primary Schools at Burhanpur.  Among other objects\twere
\nmentioned  the\tdevelopment  of branches of  the  school  at
\ndifferent places ; opening library or libraries at  suitable
\ncentres\t ; conducting newspaper or newspapers ; editing\t and
\ncompiling  and\tpublishing  books.   In\t the  Memorandum  of
\nAssociation  it was provided that 12 persons  named  therein
\nwould form the governing body to whom the management of\t the
\naffairs\t of the society shall be entrusted.  It was  further
\nprovided  that\tproperties  of each  and  every\t description
\nacquired for or given to Madrasai Hakimia & Coronation\tHigh
\nSchool\tshall  be  vested in this governing  body.   The  10
\npersons\t who have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 11\t,ire
\nmembers\t of  the governing, body of the Society.   From\t the
\ntime  they assumed the management of the Madrasai Hakimia  &
\nCoronation  High School as members of the Society they\thave
\nbeen administering the properties of which waqf was made  in
\nfavour\tof the school by the six gentlemen who executed\t the
\ntrust deed of September 15, 1909.\n<\/p>\n
The suit out of which these appeals have arisen was  started
\nunder s.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
\n627<\/span>
\nby 4 Daudi Bohra muslims who claimed to be interested in the
\ntrust  properties set out in the Schedule to the  plaint  as
\nmembers of the Daudi Bohra Community.  Their main contention
\nin  the\t plaint\t is that the first  defendant,\tthe  Hakimia
\nSociety and the 10 defendants, defendants Nos. 2 to 11\twere
\nnot  validly  appointed trustees in respect of\tthese  trust
\nproperties.  They prayed in this suit for a declaration that
\nthese  defendants are not vaildly appointed trustees  ;\t for
\ntheir  removal from the management of these  properties\t and
\nfor   an  order\t on  them  to  render  accounts\t  on   their
\nadministration of these properties.  There was also a prayer
\nfor  the  appointment  of proper and  fit  persons  for\t the
\nmanagement  of\tthese  properties  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions of the trust deed of September 15, 1909, and\t for
\nthe framing of a scheme for the administration of the trust-
\nto which we shall latter refer as the Burhanpur Trust-if  it
\nwas necessary.\tThe ground on which the plaint claimed\tthat
\nthese  defendants  were not validly appointed  trustees\t was
\nthat they had not been appointed as such in accordance\twith
\nthe terms and conditions of the trust deed of September\t 15,
\n1909.\tAccording to the plaint, whatever  entrustment\ttook
\nplace by the constitution of the Hakimia Society was invalid
\nin law as the persons who got this registered as the Hakimia
\nSociety had no right in law to vest these properties in\t the
\nSociety\t or  the  members  of the  governing  body  of\tthat
\nSociety.\n<\/p>\n
As  further ground for removal of these defendants from\t the
\nmanagement  of these properties the plaint set out a  number
\nof  acts  said to have been committed by them which  it\t was
\nalleged amounted to a breach of trust.\tOne such act was the
\ndefendants’  action in throwing open the Madrasai Hakimia  &
\nCoronation  High  School to students other  than  the  Daudi
\nBohra Community.\n<\/p>\n
628<\/span><\/p>\n
The  trustees  of  the trust created by\t Mr.  Muchhala\twere
\nimpleaded  as  defendants 12 to r7.  No relief\twas  however
\nasked for against defendants 12 to 17.\n<\/p>\n
The  main defences of defendants 1 to 11 were that they\t had
\nbeen validly appointed trustees of the properties  mentioned
\nin  the\t plaint under the trust deed. of September  1909  in
\naccordance with the rules framed under the trust deed.\tThey
\nclaimed\t that  the properties of the institution  vested  in
\nthem  and continued to remain vested after the\tregistration
\nof  the\t Society.   The allegation of breach  of  trust\t was
\ndenied.\t  In  that  connection\tit  was\t pleaded  that\t the
\nadmission  of non-Bohra students did not amount to a  breach
\nof  trust.   A large number of issues were  framed;  but  it
\nwould  be  unnecessary\tto consider most of  these  for\t the
\ndecision  of’  these  appeals.\tThe  principal\tquestion  in
\ncontroversy  was  whether defendants 1 to  11  were  validly
\nappointed  trustees  of\t the  properties  claimed  as  trust
\nproperties  in\tthe  plaint.  The  second  question  was  as
\nregards\t the  allegation  of breach  of\t trust.\t  The  first
\nquestion was embodied in Issue No. 9 thus : “Are  defendants
\n2  to 11 duly appointed trustees under the trust deed  dated
\n15-9-1909  ?” The Trial Court answered this question in\t the
\naffirmative.   Relying on the provisions of Para. 6  of\t the
\ntrust deed (of September 1909) for the framing of rules\t and
\nregulations  for  management of the  school  and  properties
\nconnected  with the school, the Court held that the  persons
\nwho  were  already trustees under the  trust-deed  “had\t the
\npower  by  a  resolution”  passed by  the  majority  of\t the
\ntrustees at their meeting to (i) appoint new trustees,. (ii)
\nto  appoint a charge of the trust properties, (iii)  to\t get
\nthe body registered and, (iv) to frame rules and regulations
\nsuch  as were embodied in the Memorandum of, Association  of
\nthe Hakimia Society.  It pointed out
\n 629<\/span>
\nthat  a\t majority of the trustees present at a\tmeeting\t had
\npassed\ta resolution regarding registration of\tthe  society
\nand  regarding\tthe rules and regulations  embodied  in\t the
\nMemorandum  of\tAssociation.   This  .registration  in\t the
\nopinion of the Court and the’ formation of the Committee  of
\nits  management for the registered society was “one’ of\t the
\nacts  done by the trustees in the course of the\t managements
\n‘and was in fact an act to secure more efficient  management
\nof  the trust property and the trustees had the power to  do
\nit.  The Court further held that while it was true that\t the
\nproperty  which\t existed  at  the  time\t the  resolution  to
\nregister  the  society\twas passed was then  vested  in\t the
\ntrustees  then existing, there was nothing to prevent  those
\ntrustees  “‘who\t under the Ex.\tP-3 had the power  to  frame
\nrules  and regulations for the management of the school\t and
\nthe  properties\t connected with it, from providing  for\t the
\nvesting of the property in the members of the governing body
\nby  a rule framed by them at a meeting of the trustees\theld
\naccording to the terms of Ex.  P-3.” According to the  Court
\n“the trustees had the power to vest the existing property in
\na  governing  body  consisting of only some  of\t them  by  a
\nresolution passed at a meeting of trustees.” Accordingly the
\nCourt held that defendants 2. to II who were members of\t the
\ngoverning  body\t of the Hakimia Society must be held  to  be
\nvalidly\t appointed  trustees according to the terms  of\t the
\ntrust deed of September 15, 1909, Ex.  P-3 in respect of all
\nthe  properties endowed for the benefit of the\tschool\twith
\nthe exception of Muchhala trust property.
\nThe  question of breach of trust by defendants 2 to 11.\t was
\nembodied  in  Issue  No.  6 in\tthese  words  “(a)  Did\t the
\ngoverning  body\t of  the School\t use  the  trust  properties
\n(mentioned  in\tthe  plaintiffs’  list\tM)  or\tany   income
\ntherefrom for fighting out litigation in 1925 (C.  S. No. 32
\nof 1925)?\n<\/p>\n
630<\/span><\/p>\n
(b)  Did  they misappropriate the trust property  or  income
\ntherefrom?\n<\/p>\n
(c)  Was  the  litigation for the benefit of  the  school”‘?
\nAnother\t part  of the allegation of breach  of\ttrust  finds
\nplace  in Issue No. 11 (c) thus : “Is the admission  of\t the
\nstudents  who  do not belong to the  Daudi  Bohra  Community
\ninconsistent with the object of the trust”?  The Trial Court
\nanswered  questions 6 (a) and (e) in the negative  i.e.,  it
\nfound  that the governing body did use trust  properties  or
\nincome therefrom for fighting out litigation in C. S. No. 32
\nof  1925 and that the litigation was not for the benefit  of
\nthe  school.  Yet the Court answered Issue No. 6 (c) in\t the
\nnegative,  finding that such expenditure did not  amount  to
\nmisappropriation.   The basis of this last finding  is\tthat
\nthough\tsome  part  of\tthe trust  fund\t was  misapplied  in
\nmeetings  part of the expenses of litigation which  was\t not
\nfor  the  benefit  of  the school the  defendants  2  to  11
\nbelieved, though wrongly, that by this litigation they would
\nbe  safeguarding  the  rights of  boys\twho  were  receiving
\neducation  in  the school and so the litigation was  in\t the
\ninterests of the institution.\n<\/p>\n
The   Trial  Court  refused  to\t make  a  declaration\tthat
\ndefendants  1 to 11 were not validly appointed or for  their
\nremoval.   It  however\tgave a decree  for  the\t removal  of
\ndefendants  12\tto 72 to 17, the trustees  of  the  Muchhala
\nTrust.\tDefendants 12 to 17 were further ordered to  deposit
\ninto  the  Court  the  amount collected\t by  them  from\t the
\nMuchhala  trust property and were forbidden to\trecover\t any
\nincome from that property after the date of the decree.
\nThe  defendants 2 to 11 were ordered to deposit the  sum  of
\nRs. 15,596-5-8 which they were found to have misapplied.  It
\nwas  ordered that if this amount was not paid by  them\tthey
\nshall be removed and a:\n<\/p>\n
 631<\/span><\/p>\n
scheme would be framed and a now trustee would be  appointed
\nto  take  charge  of  and  manage  the\tMadrasai  Hakimia  &
\nCoronation  High School and the properties endowed  for\t its
\nbenefit.   A  Commissioner was directed to be  appointed  to
\nascertain  the amount paid by the managers of  the  Muchhala
\ntrust  property to the trustees defendents 12 to 17  and  to
\ndetermine the amount in the hands of these defendants.\t The
\nsame Commissioner was also directed to determine the  amount
\nspent  by  defendants  2 to 11\ton  religious  education  in
\naccordance  with  the  directions of the  trust\t deed.\t The
\namount was found due to be paid to defendants 2 to 11 to  be
\nthen deposited, by them in a recognised bank for the benefit
\nto the school.\n<\/p>\n
Against\t this  decree  of the  Trial  Court  the  plaintiffs
\npreferred  an  appeal  to the High Court  of  Judicature  at
\nNagpur.\t Another appeal was preferred by defendants 12 to 17
\nagainst the Trial-Court’s judgment in so far as it  directed
\ntheir\tremoval\t and  gave  other  reliefs   against   them.
\nDefendants 1,2,4,5, 9 and 10 filed cross-objections in which
\nthey challenged the correctness of the Trial Court’s finding
\nthat there had been misapplication of the trust fund to\t the
\nextent\tof  Rs.\t 15,596-5-8 and\t Rs.900\/-.  The\t High  Court
\ndismissed both the appeals as also the cross-objections\t and
\naffirmed the decision of the Trial Court in full.
\nAgainst\t the  High Court’s decision two\t appeals  have\tbeen
\nfiled  before  this Court– one by the\tplaintiffs  and\t the
\nother  by  defendants  12, and 14 to  17  by  special  leave
\ngranted by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  by defendants 12, and 14 to 17  can  be  easily
\ndisposed  of.  Their contention is that the Trial  Court  as
\nalso the High Court erred in granting a decree against\tthem
\nwhen  the plaintiffs in the suit had not asked for any\tsuch
\nrelief.\t In our
\n632<\/span>
\nopinion, this contention must be accepted as correct.  While
\nit  is true that these five appellants, Sheikh Abdul  Kayum,
\nSeth  Abdulabhai, Mulla Abdulla Bhai, Mulla  Mohammed,\tBhai
\nand Seth Hasanali along with Sheikh Fida Ali were  impleaded
\nas defendants no relief was sought against them nor was\t any
\naverments  made for that purpose.  The prayers in  para.  26
\nasked  for a declaration that “defendants”‘ are not  validly
\nappointed  trustees, that .”‘defendants” maybe removed\tfrom
\nthe  management of the properties and that the\t‘defendants”
\nmay be ordered to render an account of their  administration
\nof  the\t trust\tproperties.   In  para.\t 20  also  the\tword
\n“defendants” was used without any qualification when it\t was
\nsaid that it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the
\nsaid trust that the “defendants” are not properly  appointed
\ntrustees  of  the said trust and that the  “defendants”\t are
\ntrustees de sontort.\n<\/p>\n
But  when  the\tplaint is read as a  whole,  especially\t the
\nstatements  in\tpara.  19 it becomes quite  clear  that\t the
\nplaintiffs  in\tthe  present suit are  seeking\trelief\tonly
\nagainst\t defendant,  1, Hakimia Society and  the  defendants
\nNos. 2 and 11, the members of the Society.  The averments on
\nwhich  the  case that defendants are not  validly  appointed
\ntrustees  and are trustees de sontort are made.\t in  respect
\nonly  of these 11 defendants.  The allegations of breach  of
\ntrust\tare  also  made\t only  against\t these\t defendants.
\nParagraph  10 puts the matter in clear perspective in  these
\nwords  :  “The\tplaintiffs  say that  defendant\t No.  1\t and
\ndefendants- 2 to 11 who are the present members of defendant
\nNo.1  Society  are liable’ to be removed  on  the  following
\ngrounds.”  This statement is followed by.an  enumeration  of
\nsix grounds all of which clearly and unmistakably refer only
\nto these 11 defendants.\t Common sense and ordinary rules  of
\ngrammar therefore compel us to read the words “defendants”\n<\/p>\n
633<\/span><\/p>\n
in  Paras 20 and 26 to mean only defendants Nos.  1  to\t 11.
\nWe have no doubt therefore that the courts below misdirected
\nthemselves in thinking that the plaintiffs had asked for any
\nrelief as against defendants 12 to 17.\n<\/p>\n
It was stated before us that the Muchhala trust was  outside
\nthe  jurisdiction of the Trial Court and’ that even  if\t any
\nrelief\thad been asked for against defendants 12 to  17\t the
\nTrial  Court  would not have been competent in law  to\tgive
\nsuch  relief.\tIt is unnecessary for us  to  consider\tthat
\naspect\tof  the matter as it is abundantly  clear  that\t the
\nplaintiffs did not ask for any relief against defendants  12
\nto  17\tand  for that reason alone the\tcourts\tbelow  acted
\nillegally in passing any decree as against those defendants.
\nIn the two appeals filed respectively by the plaintiffs\t and
\ndefendants  12, and 14 to 17 the appellants are\t represented
\nby  the learned Solicitor-General and it is conceded by\t him
\nfor the plaintiffs that the plaint did not claim any  relief
\nagainst defts. 12 to 17.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  No.  406  of 1960\twhich  is  by  the  original
\ndefendants 12 & 14 to 17 must therefore be allowed.
\nThe appeal which has been numbered as 407 of 1960 is by\t the
\nfour  plaintiffs.   The\t first contention  raised  on  their
\nbehalf\tby  the\t learned  Solicitor-  Genera)  is  that\t the
\noriginal trustees of the Burhanpur trust had no power in law
\nto  divest themselves of the property vested in them by\t the
\ntrust deed or to vest these properties in any society or its
\ngoverning  body,  even though the society or  the  governing
\nbody might include some or all of the old trustees.  In\t the
\npresent case it was contended in the plaint and urged before
\nus on behalf of the appellants that the evidence would\tshow
\nthat all the old trustees had not joined in the act of
\n634<\/span>
\nformation  of  the  Hakimia  Society  and  transfering\t the
\nproperty  vested  in  them to the society  or  its  members.
\nAssuming,  however, for the purpose of the present  question
\nthat what was done should be deemed in law to be the act. of
\nthe  entire old body of the trustees, even so,\tthe  learned
\nCounsel\t argues, the act had no legal validity and  did\t not
\nproduce\t in law the consequence of constituting the  Hakimia
\nSociety\t or  its  members  trustees  in\t place\tof  the\t old
\ntrustees.  In our judgment, this contention must succeed.
\nThere  cannot,\tin  our\t opinion, be  any  doubt  about\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t the  legal position  that  trustees  cannot
\ntransfer  their duties, functions and powers to\t some  other
\nbody  of  men and create them trustees in  their  own  place
\nunless\tthis  is  clearly permitted by the  trust  deed,  or
\nagreed to by the entire body of beneficiaries.\tA person who
\nis appointed a trustee is not bound to accept the trust, but
\nhaving\tonce entered upon the trust he cannot  renounce\t the
\nduties\tand  liabilities except with the permission  of\t the
\nCourt  or  with the consent of the beneficiaries or  by\t the
\nauthority  of  the  trust deed itself.\tNor  can  a  trustee
\ndelegate  his office or any of his functions except in\tsome
\nspecified cases, The rules against renunciation of the trust
\nby  a trustee and against delegation of his functions  by  a
\ntrustee\t are  embodied, in respect of trusts  to  which\t the
\nIndian\tTrusts\tAct applies, in sa. 46 and 47 of  that\tAct.
\nThese sections run thus
\n\t      “46, A trustee who has accepted the trust can-
\n\t      not afterwards renonce it except (a) with\t the
\n\t      permission  of  a\t principal  Civil  Court  of
\n\t      Original\t  Jurisdiction,\t  or(b)\t   if\t the
\n\t      beneficiary is competent to contract, with his
\n\t      consent,\tor (c) by virtue of a special  power
\n\t      in the instrument of trust.\n<\/p>\n
\t      635<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      47.   A trustee cannot delegate his office or-
\n\t      any of his duties either to a co-trustee or to
\n\t      a stranger, unless (a) the instrument of trust
\n\t      so  provides, or(b) the delegation is  in\t the
\n\t      regular\tcourse\tof  business,  or  (c)\t the
\n\t      delegation   is\tnecessary,   or\t  (d)\t the
\n\t      beneficiary,  being  competent  to   contract,
\n\t      consents to the delegation.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ttrue  that  s. I of  the  Indian  Trusts  Act  makes
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act inapplicable to\t public\t or  private
\nreligious  or charitable endowments; and so, these  sections
\nmay not in terms apply to the trust now in question.   These
\nsections  however  embody  nothing more\t or  less  than\t the
\nprinciples  which  have been applied to all  trusts  in\t all
\ncountries.   The  principle of the rule\t against  delegation
\nwith which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a
\nfiduciary  relationship having been created, it\t is  against
\nthe  interests of society in general that such\trelationship
\nshould\tbe allowed to be terminated unlilaterally.  That  is
\nwhy  the law does not permit delegation by a trustee of\t his
\nfunctions, except in cases of necessity or with the  consent
\nof  the\t beneficiary  or the authority\tof  the\t trust\tdeed
\nitself;\t apart\tfrom delegation “in the\t regular  course  of
\nbusiness”,  that is, all such functions which a prudent\t man
\nof business would ordinarily delegate in connection with his
\nown affairs.\n<\/p>\n
What  we have got in the present case is not  delegation  of
\nsome functions only, but delegation of all functions and  of
\nall powers and is nothing short of abdication in favour of a
\nnew  body of men.  Necessarily there is also the attempt  by
\nthe  old  trustees to divest themselves\t of  all  properties
\nvested\tin them by the settlor and vesting them\t in  another
\nbody  of persons.  We know of no principle of law and of  no
\nauthority  which permits such abdication of trust in  favour
\nof another body of persons.\n<\/p>\n
636<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the deed itself there is no thing which contemplates  or
\nallows\tsuch an abdication and the substitution of  the\t old
\ntrustees by a new body of trustees.  It is necessary in this
\nconnection to consider the terms of cl.5 of the trust  deed,
\nThat clause is in these words:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “5.  All\tthe  aforesaid\ttrustees  3hall\t  be
\n\t      entitled to govern, manage and administer\t the
\n\t      affairs  of the school above.  These  trustees
\n\t      shall  have  the power of\t framing  rules\t and
\n\t      regulations from time to time for the  benefit
\n\t      and  the efficient running of the school,\t and
\n\t      they  shall  have\t the power  to\tappoint\t new
\n\t      trustees from time to time in accordance\twith
\n\t      the  rules and regulations on  behalf  hereof.
\n\t      All  the\tmovable\t and  immovable\t  properties
\n\t      connected\t with the said school shall come  to
\n\t      vest in the trustees and they shall be managed
\n\t      and administered in accordance with the  rules
\n\t      and  regulations framed on that  behalf.\t The
\n\t      trustees\tfor  the time being shall  have\t the
\n\t      power  to\t alter\tand  cancel  the  rules\t and
\n\t      regulations  and\tto frame  new  ones  instead
\n\t      thereof  at  the\ttime  when  necessary.\t The
\n\t      treasurer\t shall\thave the power to  open\t the
\n\t      cash  account  in some reliable  bank  and  he
\n\t      shall always arrange for cash dealings to\t the
\n\t      benefit of the said school in accordance\twith
\n\t      the  holy law of Islam. (Shariat).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The provisions for the appointment of new trustees cannot by
\nany stretch of imagination be hold to mean the\tsubstitution
\nof  the old body of trustees by a new body.  That  provision
\nonly  permits the old trustees to add to their number.\t Nor
\ndoes  the  power  to frame rules  and  regulations  for\t the
\nbenefit\t and efficient running of the school  authorise\t the
\ntrustees to give up the management of the school  themselves
\nor to divest themselves of the
\n 637<\/span>
\nproperties entrusted to them by the trust deed and vest them
\nin  other persons.  We are satisfied therefore that cl.5  of
\nthe trust deed does not in any manner authorise the trustees
\nappointed  by  deed to abdicat in favour of anthor  body  of
\npersons or to constitute that body as trustees in their\t own
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
There is no question here also of the beneficiary, i.e., the
\nschool consenting to such abdication.  There is therefore no
\nescape from the conclusion that the act of the trustees, who
\nwere  appointed\t by  the trust deed,  in  handing  over\t the
\nmanagement  of\tthe school to the Hakimia  Society  and\t the
\nproperties  of\tthe school to the members of  the  governing
\nbody of the Hakima Society was illegal and void in law.\t The
\nmembers of the Society or the members of the governing\tbody
\ndid  not  therefore  be. come trustees\tin  respect  of\t the
\nproperties which are covered by the Burbanpur trust.
\nThis  position in law is not seriously disputed by Mr.\tSon,
\nwho appeared before us on behalf of the respondents.  He has
\nhowever\t taken\tbefore\tus a noval line\t for  suporting\t the
\ndecision  of the courts below.\tHe has tried to persuade  us
\nthat  the trust deed of September 1909 creates a trust\tonly
\nin  respect  of\t the properties that  belonged\tto  the\t six
\npersons who executed the trust deed.  These properties\thave
\nbeen  set  out\tin  cls. 7 to 12 of  the  deed.\t  This\tdeed
\ntherefore  has not created any trust in respect of  such  of
\nthe  properties\t mentioned in the plaint which do  not\tfall
\nwithin\tthe  properties mentioned in these  clauses  of\t the
\ntrust  deed.   As regards cl.5 of the trust deed  which\t has
\nbeen  set out above and which states that “‘All the  movable
\nand  immovable\tproperties connected with  the\tsaid  school
\nshall  come  to vest in the trustees,” the  learned  Counsel
\nstates that the six settlors who executed this trust deed of
\nSeptember 1909 have not been shown to have bad any title  to
\nthese
\n638<\/span>
\nmovable and immovable properties connected with the  school.
\nThe  school,  argues  the  learned  Counsel,  is  merely   a
\nbeneficiary of the trust and the properties of the school do
\nnot  become  trust properties entrusted\t to  these  trustees
\nmerely\tbecause\t the  settlors have createated\ta  trust  in
\nrespect of other properties.  There is no question therefore
\nof  any\t property-other\t than the  properties  mentioned  in
\nParas.\t7  to  12  of the deed-having  been  vested  in\t the
\ntrustees   appointed  by  the  deed,  or   their   divesting
\nthemselves  of\tthe  same.   It is only in  so\tfar  as\t the
\ndefendants  1  to  11  claim  to  be  the  trustees  of\t the
\nproperties mentioned in cls. 7 to 12 of this deed that\tthey
\ncan be considered to be not validly appointed trustees.\t Mr.
\nSen submits that his clients do not claim to be trustees  in
\nrespect of these properties, viz., those which are mentioned
\nin cls. 7 to 12 of the deed.  In so far as they manage these
\nproperties an order, may be made against them removing\tthem
\nfrom the management of these and they may be asked to render
\naccounts  in respect of these properties, only.\t In  respect
\nof  other  properties  which according to Mr.  Sen  are\t the
\nproperties  belongining to the beneficiary school,  however,
\nno  order  could properly be made, as they are\toutside\t the
\nBurhanpur  trust that came into existence by the trust\tdeed
\nof September 1909.\n<\/p>\n
The  argument  appears attractive at first  sight  and\teven
\nplausible.   Unfortunately,  however, for  the\trespondents,
\nthis  case which their Counsel now seeks to make  was  never
\ntheir  case in the courts below.  Far from saying that\tsome
\nof   the  properties  mentioned\t in  the  plaint  as   trust
\nproperties of the Burhanpur trust are not in fact covered by
\nthe  trust deed, these respondents have all along  made\t the
\ndefinite  case that they were validly appointed trustees  of
\nthose  properties  in  accordance with\tthe  trust  deed  of
\nSeptember, 1909.  Their case in this matter may
\n 639<\/span>
\nbest  be  described  in the words used in  Para.  4  of\t the
\nwritten statement thus
\n\t      “It  is admitted that on or about 19th  March,
\n\t      1917,  seven  persons signed a  memorandum  of
\n\t      Association   and\t registered  themselves\t  as
\n\t      members of the Society under Act XXI of  1860.
\n\t      Defendant says that all these persons were the
\n\t      trustees\tand  in the management of  be  trust
\n\t      properties  under trust deed  dated  15-9-1909
\n\t      and were either appointed under that trust  or
\n\t      under the rules framed thereunder, and in whom
\n\t      the  properties of the institution vested\t and
\n\t      the  same\t continued to be  vested  after\t the
\n\t      registration of the Society.”\n<\/p>\n
This  paragraph unambiguously accepts the  plaintiffs’\tcase
\nthat all the properties specified in the Schedule M attached
\nto  the\t plaint\t are  properties covered  by  the  trust  in
\nquestion and it pleads that defendants 2 to’  11 are validly
\nappointed  trustees of the said trust.\tThe Judgment of\t the
\nTrial Court and the High Court also clearly show that before
\nthem,  these  defendants  claimed  to  be   trustees-validly
\nappointed  in  accordance with the trust deed  of  September
\n1909-of\t all  the properties that were\tmentioned  as  trust
\nproperties  of that deed in the plaint.\t Nothing appears  to
\nhave been pleaded either in the written statement or at\t the
\ntrial or during the arguments that the settlors of this deed
\nof  September  1909 could not create a trust in\t respect  of
\n“all the movable and immovable properties connected with the
\nsaid  school”, as those properties’-did not belong to  them.
\nOn  the contrary. the respondents claimed all along to\thave
\nbecome\ttrustees in respect of. not only of  the  properties
\nmentioned in cls. 7 to 12 of the deed but also of all  other
\nproperties of the school, on the strength of this very trust
\ndeed, Mr. Sen’s
\n640<\/span>
\ncontention  that some items of the properties  mentioned  in
\nthe plaint as trust properties covered by the trust deed  of
\nSeptember  15, 1909 were not so covered cannot therefore  be
\naccepted,
\nWe  find  it established therefore that defendants 1  to  11
\nwere not validly appointed trustees in respect of the  trust
\nproperties  mentioned  in the plaint. Their  possession\t and
\nmanagement of these properties must therefore be held to  be
\nonly  in  the  character of trustee de\tsontort.   They\t are
\nliable\tthere-fore  to account for their  entire  period  of
\nmanagement.\n<\/p>\n
From  the very fact that they have no legal right to  remain
\nin  possession\tof  the trust properties,  not\thaving\tbeen
\nvalidly appointed as trustees, it is equally clear that\t the
\nplaintiffs are entitled to a decree that those defendants  1
\nto 11 be removed from the management of the properties.
\nThe learned Solicitor-General challenged the correctness  of
\nthe  findings  of  the courts below  that  these  defendants
\n(defendants  1\tto 11 ) did not by their  misapplication  of
\ntrust  funds to the extent of Rs. 15,596-5-8 and  Rs.  9001-
\ncommit\tmisappropriation  and  also that  the  admission  of
\nstudents who did not belong to the Daudi Bohra Community was
\nnot  inconsistent with the object of the trust, We think  it
\nunnecessary  however to consider these matters\tinasmuch  as
\neven  if these findings of the courts below are correct\t the
\nplaintiffs  are entitled to the reliefs they have asked\t for
\nin this suit.  Besides the amount of Rs. 15,000\/-and odd has
\nbeen already paid by defendants 2 to 11 under the decree  of
\nthe Trial Courts.  It is necessary to mention the fact\tthat
\nan  assurance was given to by the learned  Solicitor-General
\nthat in any case the interest of the non-Bohra students will
\nbe safeguarded in this school.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly,  we  allow\t the appeal and\t order\tthat  it  be
\ndeclared that the defendants 1 to 11 are
\n641<\/span>
\nnot  validly  appointed\t trustees in respect  of  the  trust
\nproperties  mentioned in the list M annexed to the plaint  ;
\nthat the defendants be removed from the management of  these
\nproperties and they be ordered to render an account of their
\nadministration\tof these properties.   Necessary  directions
\nfor  the  rendering of accounts will be made  by  the  Trial
\nCourt and in doing so, credit will be given to defendants  2
\nto  11\tof  Rs. 15,000\/and odd already paid  by\t them.\t The
\nplaintiffs-appellants  admit  that it is  not  necessary  to
\nframe any scheme for the administration of the trust and  we
\nagree  that this is not necessary-at least for the  present.
\nIt  is necessary however that new trustees be appointed\t for
\nthe  administration  of\t the  trust.   of  the\toriginal  18
\ntrustees  all  except  one are dead  and  sole\tsurvivor  is
\nadmittedly   too   old\tto  carry  on\tthe   administration
\nsuccessfully.  The very fact that for many year’s he has not
\ndischarged  any\t functions  as\ta  trustee  also  makes\t  it
\nnecessary  that\t new  trustees\tshould\tbe  appointed.\t  We
\ntherefore  direct that suitable persons be appointed by\t the
\nTrial  Court as new trustees after giving an opportunity  to
\nthe  plaintiffs and other responsible members of  the  Daudi
\nBohra Community to place their recomendations and objections
\nin this matter.\n<\/p>\n
Both  the  appeals are accordingly allowed,  The  Plaintiffs
\nwill  get their costs here and also in the Trial  Court\t and
\nthe  High Court from defendants 1 to 11.  There will be\t one
\nset of hearing fee for the two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
642<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 309, 1963 SCR (3) 623 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: SHEIKH ABDUL KAYUM Vs. RESPONDENT: MULLA ALIBHAI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/08\/1962 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. CITATION: 1963 […]<\/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-88612","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962 - 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\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-13T06:12:55+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T06:12:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962\"},\"wordCount\":5414,\"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\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962\",\"name\":\"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T06:12:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962 - 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\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-13T06:12:55+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962","datePublished":"1962-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T06:12:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962"},"wordCount":5414,"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\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962","name":"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T06:12:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-abdul-kayum-vs-mulla-alibhai-on-17-august-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962"}]},{"@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\/88612","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=88612"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88612\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88612"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88612"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88612"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}