AIR 1986 HIMACHAL PRADESH 23 ::(1985) 2 Civ LJ 536 ::(1985) Sim LC 223 ::(1985) ILR HP 401 ::ILR 1985 Him Pra 401

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): H. S. Thakur, V. P. Bhatnagar , JJ

(A) Wakf Act (29 of 1954) , S.3(1)— @page-HP24Wakf - Pirsthan, whether wakf - Disputed land ordinally part of Shamlat Deh - Income of Pirsthan divided between Muslims and non Muslims - Pirsthan not wakf. Where the land in dispute originally formed part of Shamlat Deh and subsequently came to be known as'Pirsthan' probably for the reason that some'pir' i.e. a holy man had his abode here or some memorial was raised after his death, and the income of this place used to he divided amongst certain named persons, both Muslims and non-Muslims. the logical conclusion that follows is that the property in dispute was not dedicated by a person professing Islam and it has not been used for purposes recognized by Muslins Law as pious, religious or charitable and as such was not a wakf under the Act.' The Pirsthan was also not described as' Mosque',' Idgah',' Imambara','Dargah','Khangah' or a'Maqbara' by which names Muslim Wakfs are generally known. The doors of all Muslim religious place faced west whereas the doors of the Pirsthan faced East. The place in dispute was all along been used as a place of worship both by the Hindus as also by the Muslims, and all the more there was also a'Gharyal' (bell) which is not found in the mosques but in the temples worshipped by Hindus. As such, in the totality of the circumstances, the disputed place cannot be a wakf.(Para 5 ....