Aamir2580: new - done

2025-11-20T00:37:20Z

new - done

New page

{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2019}}
{{Use Indian English|date=September 2019}}
<section begin=galla/>'''The Chandabhoy Galla Case''' set a significant precedent on the issue of a human's claim to being infallible, immaculate, executor of God's will, and trusteeship of God's funds. The case was filed in 1917, during the [[British Raj|British rule of India]], by [[Sir Thomas Strangman]], the [[Advocate General of Bombay]], at the behest of [[Adamjee Peerbhoy]]'s family against the 51st Dai al-Mutlaq of the [[Dawoodi Bohra]], [[Taher Saifuddin]]. In 1921, Saifuddin won the case on basis of the belief that [[Imam al Zamaan|Imam]], as representative of the [[Muhammad|Prophet]] and through him the representative of [[Allah|God]], [[Occultation (Islam)|having withdrawn from public life]], must [[Hadith Of The Cloak|entrust someone to represent them]] the ''[[Dai al-Mutlaq]]'' (and hence Saifuddin), in accordance with [[Tayyibi]] religious belief.<section end=galla/>

The trusteeship of the money donated via a ''Galla'' ({{lit|donation box}}) kept near the tomb of Chandabhoy in [[Bombay]], who was revered as a miraculous Saint, was challenged on the plea of improper chain of succession from 47th Dai al-Mutlaq, [[Abdul Qadir Najmuddin]]'s appointment. Issues pertaining to the office of ''Dai al-Mutlaq'' raised during the case, however; were of greater importance than the trusteeship of the ''Galla'' itself.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0226056767 |isbn=0226056767 |title=Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras |first1=Jonah |last1=Blank |page=236 |year=2001 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |authorlink1=Jonah Blank |via=books.google.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book| url=https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0857735268 |isbn=978-0857735263 |title=Modern History of the Ismailis: Continuity and Change in a Muslim Community |editor1-first=Farhad |editor1-last=Daftary |year=2010 |publisher=Bloomsbury |via=books.google.com}}</ref> Sir Thomas Strangman observes in his book ''Indian Courts and Characters'' that the case is remarkable not only for its length, but for the amazing claims put forward on behalf of the 'Mullaji' (Taher Saifuddin), the like of which have never been put forward in any Court of Law.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4JRCAAAAIAAJ |title=Indian Courts and Characters |last1=Strangman |first1=Thomas |year=1931 |authorlink1=Thomas Strangman |via=books.google.com}}</ref>

Had Abdul Qadir Najmuddin's [[Nass (Islam)|appointment]] not upheld by the court in the [[Burhanpur Dargah Case]], validity of the subsequent [[List of Dai of the Dawoodi Bohra|Duat al-Mutlaqeen]] could be questioned, and by extension, their trusteeship of all religious properties. [[Justice Marten]] based his judgement on religious texts to hold that all properties (in respect of which the declaration was sought) were devoted to charitable purposes, and that the ''Mullaji'' (Taher Saifuddin) was sole trustee thereof, and also that, despite his infallibility, the ''Mullaji'' remained accountable to the Court of Law:{{r|mcase}}<ref>{{Cite court |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160316231734/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1759917/ |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1759917/ |litigants=The Advocate General Of Bombay vs Yusufalli Ebrahim on 19 March 1921 |date=1922 |court=[[High Court of Bombay]] |via=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

:"...high-ranking people could be trusted not to commit criminal breach of trust; but that did not mean that they were beyond the pale of the law. For example, His Grace the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], could not conceivably commit a criminal offence; but he was nevertheless subject to the criminal law, and this fact involved no slur. So, too, in theory the Mullaji Saheb was amenable to the criminal and civil law of this country, though it was unthinkable that he would commit any offence. But the existence of this civil restraint is no more a slur upon an honest trustee, than the existence of criminal restraint is upon an honest citizen. The test of a trust is not whether the alleged trustee can ever commit a breach of trust, which is what the defendants' contention in effect amounts to."

[[File:Syedna Taher Saifuddin Testimony in the Gulla Case 1920.pdf|thumb|right|Transcript of testimony by the defendant in the Chandabhoy Galla Case {{circa|1920}}]]

<section begin=strangmanquote/>Upon conclusion of the case, Strangman noted:<ref name=mcase>{{Cite web|url=http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/historicalcases/cases/MULLAJI_CASE.html |title=Mullaji Case (Chandabhoy Gulla Case)-19l8-19l9 |year=1919}}</ref>

:"Looking back on the proceedings, I think what impressed me the most, even more than the extravagance of the claims, was the personality of the Mullaji, a frail looking figure possessed nevertheless of an iron will, great determination, and organising capacity. At the time he assumed office the administration must have been extremely slack. Yet he managed in a very few years not only to pull the administration together but to obtain a hold upon his followers greater perhaps than that of any of his predecessors."<section end=strangmanquote/>

During Taher Saifuddin's testimony, he clarified about existence of knowledge classes of [[Zahir (Islam)|''Zahir'']], [[Esoteric interpretation of the Quran|''Tawil'']], and [[Haqaiq|''Haqiqat'']]: First two of the three are known to many but the third, ''Haqiqat'', contains religious truths known to a very few. And an even higher class of knowledge which is with the Dai al-Mutlaq exclusively that they pass on only to their successors.<ref>{{Cite court|vol= 52 |litigants=The Advocate General Of Bombay vs Yusufalli Ebrahim on 19 March 1921 |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syedna_Taher_Saifuddin_Testimony_in_the_Gulla_Case_1920.pdf |reporter=Justice Marten |year=1922 |court=[[High Court of Bombay]] |pinpoint=280-284}}</ref>

A similar case was brought to the court of Mughal emperor, [[Jalaluddin Akbar]], in 1591, as [[Sulayman ibn Hasan]] challenged [[Dawood Bin Qutubshah]]'s accession. After much deliberation, Akbar eventually issued a royal ''farman'' ({{lit|decree}}) in favor of Qutub Shah, instead.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/unique-case-from-akbar-s-court-in-1591-to-bombay-hc/story-u4QNPgu4wyYETNUSa2mjVN.html |title=Unique case: From Akbar's court in 1591 to Bombay HC}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010210004257/http://www.bohra.net/archive/ahmedabad.html| title=History of Duat Mutlakin's of Ahmedabad |archive-date=10 February 2001 |url=http://www.bohra.net/archive/ahmedabad.html |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Gems of History: A Brief History of Doat Mutlaqeen |url=https://gemsofhistory.com |last1=Hassanally |first1=Yusuf Mamujee |year=2017 |isbn= |publisher=Alvazaratus Saifiyah |location=Colombo |chapter=The 27th Dai al-Mutlaq, Ad-Da'il Ajal Syedna Dawood Burhanuddin bin Qutubshah bin Khwaja bin Ali |pages=110–115 }}</ref> In another instance in 2014, [[53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)#Court cases|succession of Mufaddal Saifuddin]] was contested by an opposing faction led by [[Khuzaima Qutbuddin]], Taher Saifuddin's son, who moved the [[Bombay High Court]] to protract the case<ref name="Huff Post">{{cite news | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rizwan-mawani/the-intricacies-of-succes_b_4687546.html | title=The Intricacies of Succession: Two Claimants Emerge for Dawoodi Bohra Leadership |work=[[The Huffington Post]] | date=30 January 2014 | accessdate=11 February 2014 | first=Rizwan | last=Mawani |archive-date=27 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180927154410/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rizwan-mawani/the-intricacies-of-succes_b_4687546.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Uncertainty Among the Bohras |url=https://openthemagazine.com/features/uncertainty-among-bohras/ |date=3 Feb 2020 |last1=Bhutia |first1=Lhendup G |website=openthemagazine.com |archive-date=2 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302142205/https://openthemagazine.com/features/uncertainty-among-bohras/}}</ref> despite lack of mainstream recognition.<ref name=":34">{{cite news |title=UK Charity Commission's View regarding The Dawat-e-Hadiyah Trust |last1=Waring|first1=Kate |date=15 August 2014 |publisher=Herbert Smith Freehills Solicitors and Nabarro Solicitors (Charity Commission)}}</ref><ref name=m500>{{Cite book |url=https://www.themuslim500.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TheMuslim500-2020-low.pdf|title=The Muslim 500: The World's 500 Most Influential Muslims |access-date=12 Jun 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612095355/https://www.themuslim500.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TheMuslim500-2020-low.pdf |archive-date=12 June 2020 |publisher=[[The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre]] |editor1-link=Abdallah Schleifer |editor1-last=Schleifer |editor1-first=S Abdallah |isbn=9789957635459 |location=[[Jordan]] |year=2019}}</ref> On 23 April 2024, the Bombay high court dismissed the suit challenging Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's position as the 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra Community. The court dismissed Taher Fakhruddin(son of [[Khuzaima Qutbuddin]])'s claim and upheld Syedna Mufaddal as Dai-ul-Mutlaq.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bombay-high-court-rejects-dawoodi-bohra-succession-suit-101713852817458.html | title=Bombay high court rejects Dawoodi Bohra succession suit, upholds Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's claim | date=23 April 2024 }}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Indian case law]]
[[Category:Dawoodi Bohras]]

Chandabhoy Galla case - Revision history

Aamir2580: new - done