Wakf property transfer safeguards barred specific performance where authority and statutory sanction were lacking.

Wakf property could not be validly alienated without compliance with the Wakf Act and the prescribed rules, because prior sanction and the mandatory transfer procedure were required. The Mujavars were not shown to have independent authority to bind the property, and the purported sanction was ineffective where publication and objection procedures were not followed and its authorship was denied. A decree for specific performance was therefore unsustainable because a contract cannot be enforced when the vendor lacks lawful authority or cannot convey a title free from reasonable doubt, and the relief remains discretionary where the transaction appears suspicious. The SC set aside the decree and annulled the specific performance relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Mujavars had authority to enter into and complete a contract for sale of wakf property without compliance with the Wakf Act and the Rules. (ii) Whether a decree for specific performance could be sustained in the face of non-compliance with the statutory procedure, doubtful genuineness of the transaction, and the discretionary nature of the relief.

Issue (i): Whether the Mujavars had authority to enter into and complete a contract for sale of wakf property without compliance with the Wakf Act and the Rules.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested control of wakf property in the Wakf Board and required prior sanction before transfer. The definition of mutawalli included certain persons managing wakf property, but the Mujavars in the present case were not shown to have independent authority to alienate the property. The transfer procedure under the Act and Rule 12 required publication, invitation of objections, consideration of objections, and sanction in the prescribed manner. The sanction relied upon was not published as required, and the alleged author of the letter of permission denied its authorship. The Court held that the mandatory statutory safeguards were not followed.

Conclusion: The Mujavars had no lawful authority to bind the wakf property by the alleged agreement of sale, and the purported sanction was ineffective.

Issue (ii): Whether a decree for specific performance could be sustained in the face of non-compliance with the statutory procedure, doubtful genuineness of the transaction, and the discretionary nature of the relief.

Analysis: A contract to sell immovable property cannot be specifically enforced where the vendor has no title or cannot convey a title free from reasonable doubt. Specific performance is a discretionary relief and must be refused where the transaction appears suspicious, the statutory requirements have not been complied with, and the plaintiff's conduct does not justify equitable relief. The Court also found serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged agreement and related documents, and considered that the relief should not have been granted on these facts.

Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was reversed, the appeals were allowed, and the decree for specific performance stood annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alienation of wakf property is governed by mandatory statutory procedures, a contract entered into without lawful authority or prescribed sanction cannot be specifically enforced, and equitable relief may be refused where the transaction is doubtful and the plaintiff does not merit discretionary relief.

---