Broad construction of waqf litigation notice and limitation rules defeats challenge where prior statutory notice was omitted.

A suit challenging a waqf notification and Board action fell within section 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, because "person interested in a waqf" was construed broadly to include a person interested in property held to be a waqf; the suit was therefore barred by limitation. Section 15 of the Limitation Act did not extend time, as the earlier order did not stay institution of the present suit. The suit was also incompetent for want of prior notice under section 53, since that provision required notice before suing the Board in respect of acts done under the Act and the disputed notification covered the relevant darga property. The preliminary objections succeeded and relief was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit challenging the notification and Board action was governed by section 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936 and barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the suit was incompetent for want of notice under section 53 of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936.

Issue (i): Whether the suit challenging the notification and Board action was governed by section 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936 and barred by limitation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated a suit by a person disputing a waqf notification as falling within section 5(2). The expression "any person interested in a waqf" was construed liberally to mean a person interested in what is held to be a waqf, because a literal construction would defeat the remedy created by the provision. On that construction, the plaintiffs were persons interested in the notified property. The Court also held that section 15 of the Limitation Act did not assist them, because that provision applies only where institution of the suit is stayed by an injunction or order, and the earlier order relied on did not stay the institution of the present suit.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by section 5(2) and was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was incompetent for want of notice under section 53 of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936.

Analysis: Section 53 required prior notice before any suit against the Central Board in respect of acts done under colour of the Act or for relief concerning any waqf. The notification sufficiently covered the darga and its properties, including the subject-matter of the suit. Since the statutory notice was not given, the condition precedent for institution of the suit was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The suit was incompetent for want of notice under section 53.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objections succeeded, so the plaintiffs could not obtain relief in the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge under section 5(2), the phrase "person interested in a waqf" means a person interested in the property held to be a waqf, and section 15 of the Limitation Act applies only where a prior order or injunction truly stays the institution of the subsequent suit.

---