A single Judge Bench consisting of Justice Pratibha M Singh of Delhi High Court, in the case of Mohd Ashraf & Ors v. Abdul Wahid Siddique (14.12.2020), held that there cannot be any legality or validity attached to a fatwa, especially in respect of ownership of immovable property, and such a declaration would not be binding on a third party. The Court answered the issue in an appeal against a lower court order which had dismissed an application pertaining to ownership of property in Delhi’s Daryaganj area.
A suit for possession and recovery of damages was filed by three Plaintiffs, who were the Petitioners in the present petition, against Mr. Abdul Wahid Siddique i.e., the Respondent/Defendant.
[CM APPL. 3822/2019] Application was filed by the Petitioners seeking condonation of 25 days’ delay in re-filing the application for stay of the trial court proceedings till the disposal of the present petition. Delay is condoned.
[CM APPL. 54975/2018] This application was filed by the Petitioners for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures and fair typed copies of dim annexures. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
[C.R.P. 89/2016 & CM APPLs. 54974/2018, 3821/2019] Two issues arose in this petition:
Firstly, whether Trial Court judgment dismissing the application u/O XII Rule 6 CPC, after nearly one & a half years of arguments being heard and the order being reserved, is sustainable?
Whether rights in an immovable property can be legally and validly derived on the basis of a fatwa issued by a maulvi and its binding nature on a 3rd party?
Reasoning and Decision of the Court:
After issues were framed, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed by the Plaintiffs. Arguments on the application were heard on 27th September 2014 and the matter was fixed for orders/clarifications on 15th October, 2014. Thereafter, on several dates, the order was not passed. Further, without any direction from the Court, on two occasions the Defendant filed case law. Finally, the Plaintiffs moved an application under Order XX Rule 1 CPC seeking pronouncement of judgment and finally, the impugned order dismissing the Order XII Rule 6 CPC application was passed on 12th February, 2016.