Chandabhai Galla case

['sauga dude]

Assalam aleykum,

I have been reading some of the articles on this website and came across the following article - http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/67/52/Th ... he-courts/.

I see that this has been discussed many times before on this forum too, but I will be very grateful if someone could explain one very confusing point for me.

Many times I have heard moalana personally as well as other bhaisahebs/amils talking about the Chandabhai Galla case and always they mention that Syedna Taher Saifuddin "case ma fateh thaya". See the website http://www.misbah.info/7th/topics/fact_ ... t_file.htm where it says "Syedna (RA) declared that he was a trustee appointed by Imam uz zamaan, and answerable only to the Imam. The court ruled in favor of Syedna (RA). It held that Syedna (RA) was the sole trustee of community properties and had the exclusive right to manage and control them". In another website http://www.malumaat.com/archives/akhbar ... hbar2.html it says In Waaz Mubarak Aqa Maula TUS did the Zikr of Maqam of Dais - Satr' in great details with various examples. During the time of Chandabhai Galla Case" in the Zaman of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA many questions were raised about it. But Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA replied them very well. Once even Judge Martin also asked a direct question.
Syedna explained him and said that he was the Vicegerent of Imam and not the vice regent."

From the article http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/67/52/Th ... he-courts/, it would seem that Syedna Taher Saifuddin lost in the case. Who is telling the truth?

Does anybody have the copy of the Judgment or Syedna Taher Saifuddin's evidence given in court? Can this be posted on the forum so that all can read the original Judgement?

I think all bohras need to see the truth. Not personal opinions about the case or what they have heard. But the truth in the form of the original judgment itself.

[Biradar]

Please see the article:

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/83/97/Sa ... l_article/

This is a first-hand account of the case by a key lawyer involved in the case. That should clarify the story of what really happened. In many ways this case was a turning point in the community. The da'i made sure, after this, that his hold on the community was so complete that no one would even dream of bringing him to court again. The present da'i has continued this practice. The extreme control he exercises not only on the physical appearance of his followers, but even what they think is evidence of this. No one, except the progressives, dares to challenge him in courts or in any other way. Sad, but a major means of securing justice has been snatched away.

['sauga dude]

Assalam alekum Biradar,

I have read that article by the Advocate-General. I have read/heard different versions of this Chandabhai case. How do I decide which is the truth?

That is my dilemma. Thousands of bohras will tell me that Syedna Taher Saifuddin was successful in the Chandabhai case and in every other case brought against him. I have heard moalana himself say that Syedna Taher Saifuddin was "fateh" in the Chandabhai case. Why should a bohra now beleive me if I go and tell him that Syedna Taher Saifuddin was not successful and that moalana is lying when he says Syedna Taher Saifuddin won? Why would anyone believe my word over that of moalana?

I think bohras need to see the judgment itself in the Chandabhai case so that they can decide for themselves who is telling the truth and who is lying.

[Biradar]

I have read that article by the Advocate-General. I have read/heard different versions of this Chandabhai case. How do I decide which is the truth?

The advocate-general conducted the case himself and hence his version is bound to be more accurate. However, reading the actual court proceedings will be the ultimate record of what happened. These are not easy to get, specially in the West. I will try and get hold of them and post them here, if possible.

It is interesting that the Misbah article you posted said that the intention of the "enemies" was to prove that S. Taher Saifuddin was not the rightly appointed da'i due to a break in the naas. However, as far as I can see from the official reports there was no such motivation. Hence, I think it is easy for the orthodox to claim victory: then invent false reasons for why cases are fought and then it is easy to declare victory on non-issues. However, one has to keep in mind that intentions of a person and the official charges he brings about may indeed be different.

Even if you were to show the complete court proceedings to a fanatic bohra, he will still say that what S. Taher Saifuddin did was correct and he did win the case. Religious people have blinders on them and no matter how much you argue and what evidence they show they will not be convinced. Also, in the ultimate analysis, historical developments show that the da'i's position became stronger and the progressive position weaker. So that itself will be a sign of victory. Fanatics lack the finesse to distinguish power from truth. For them, specially nowadays, power is truth. You will find more pleasure in banging your head on a brick wall.

[Al Zulfiqar]

good replies biradar.

i just wish to add for 'sauga dude that immediately post the chandabhai galla case which the syedna lost, he arranged a huge procession to be taken out in mumbai and other major cities of india where bohras reside, to celebrate his 'fateh mubin'.

when the presiding judge heard about this later, a writ summons was issued on syedna taher saifuddin, asking him why he should not be held in contempt of court and asked for explanations, failing which he could be jailed if the maximum extent of the law was applied.

the wily politicians that they are, syedna issued a vague letter of apology and promised in writing not to repeat this again.

the inner facts always remain hidden from the vast majority of our people, the outward lies and falsehoods prevail. there is no treatment for the ignorance of our people, esp when its wilful and they prefer remaining so. you can take a horse to the water, you cannot make it drink.

['sauga dude]

Assalam aleykum, Al Zulfiqar,

you can take a horse to the water, you cannot make it drink.

But I can take the horse to the water, show it the water and, if the horse is thirsty, it will drink the water!

Back in the days following the Chandabhai case, Syedna Taher Saifuddin could arrange processions and victory parties if he wanted and no-one would be any the wiser. I remember the days immediately after the Asgarali Engineer/moalana incident when every jamaat around the world had majlises to condemn the "attack" on moalana. Nobody ever found out at that time what the real story was.

But today, with internet and sms and facebook etc, news spreads very fast. The emails claiming that haq had won and the Saudi had returned the rubaat property to moalana were very quickly proved to be false. The whole thing very badly backfired on the jamaat.

The truth needs to be out there. Then it is for the individual to make his own decisions. If he wants to continue to be blinded inspite of the truth being placed infront of him, that is his choice. If he is thirsty, he will gulp down the truth and will come back for the kharas and mithas too!!

[Maqbool]

Long back I have gone through the judgment, and if I recall, The judge has delivered the judgment that since there is no other claimant for the dai, the judge upheld the claim of Sayedna Taher Saifudin as fifty first dai.

Regarding the galla fund court has ordered that one more galla is to be placed in the dargah of Chandabhai and the person can offer their offering as per their wish either to the galla controlled by Sayedna or authorised by court.

Over all the claims of Sayedna were not confirmed by the judge but benefit of doubt was in favor of Sayedna

['sauga dude]

Assalam aleykum,

Over all the claims of Sayedna were not confirmed by the judge but benefit of doubt was in favor of Sayedna

So then the clergy is not lying when they say that Syedna Taher Saifuddin was successful in the case?

a writ summons was issued on syedna taher saifuddin, asking him why he should not be held in contempt of court and asked for explanations, failing which he could be jailed if the maximum extent of the law was applied.

the wily politicians that they are, syedna issued a vague letter of apology and promised in writing not to repeat this again.

If the benefit of the doubt was in favour of Syedna Taher Saifuddin, then why would he have been in contempt of court for celebrating his fateh mubin? What did he apologise for?

Who is lying and who is telling the truth here?

[S. Insaf]

Dear brother 'sauga dude'
Please provide me your address to me on my e-mail address sinsaf@yahoo.com and I will send you the copy of original judgment copy + roz-nama.
The case against late Sayedna Saheb was filed for giving account of Chandabhoy Galla (1917-1921). The question of Nass was raised during Burhanpur Dargah case (1925).
Please do not be afraid your name and address shall not be disclosed to any one.

[aziz]

it can be seen from your email id sinsaf that you are full of sin but not safe for long.hell waits

['sauga dude]

Assalam aleykum brother Insaf,

I will email you my address later today. Thank you very much for offering to mail me the original judgement and roz-nama (what is the roz-nama?).

One more question though - why can you not post the judgment on this forum? I am sure that there are many more visitors to this forum who would also be interested to read what the judgment says. Rather than mailing out individual copies of the judgment, would it not be better if it was made available to all?

[Humsafar]

Fanatics lack the finesse to distinguish power from truth. For them, specially nowadays, power is truth.

Very well said Biradar. That is the crux of the matter.

[Al Zulfiqar]

Long back I have gone through the judgment, and if I recall, The judge has delivered the judgment that since there is no other claimant for the dai, the judge upheld the claim of Sayedna Taher Saifudin as fifty first dai.

Regarding the galla fund court has ordered that one more galla is to be placed in the dargah of Chandabhai and the person can offer their offering as per their wish either to the galla controlled by Sayedna or authorised by court.

Over all the claims of Sayedna were not confirmed by the judge but benefit of doubt was in favor of Sayedna

maqbool and suaga dude,

you are both confusing the issues. the chandabhai galla case was re: syedna taher saifuddin having stolen money from the galla by breaking and replacing the locks on it. he was just a trustee of the chandabhai dargah like many others and had no rights to break the locks and take the money which was not rightfully his.

what syedna's defence was that since he was the dai, which he further emphasised by claiming to be the absolute dai-ul mutlaq and linking himself with imam uz zaman (in hiding, which he confessed under oath, was just a figment of imagination) and thus to the prophet and then allah, he automatically became the ilah ul ardh, or god on earth for bohras; and thus was above and beyond any human laws and could not be brought to court at all. besides, he was the undisputed master of all bohras properties, their souls and their day to day lives. he could do anything as he saw fit, he was kal maasoom and could not be questioned.

Whereas the court admitted that he was the dai of the community, he was not above any man made laws. even if he claimed to be god himself he could not perform any acts which were unlawful and unethical in the eyes of the law of the land. It did not absolve him of responsibility and found him guilty of stealing money which belonged to the trust and placed in the galla by the devout in good faith and which monies were used for upkeep of the dargah, to observe the urus and carry out acts of charity and betterment of community. Syedna’s claims as dai of being the sole owner of the galla also were shot down and disproved as he was not the sole trustee.

The statement that since he was the only dai and they could not disprove it, so he won the case is irrelevant and misleading. Syedna not only lost the case where he was convicted of stealing money, but he also had to pay the legal costs of the accusers as is normal in such circumstances.

Inspite of this he claimed that he won and twisted the judgement to declare to his community that the court and his dushmano could not disprove that he was the rightful dai. Since that was not the original issue for the case, it had no bearing on the outcome and was deliberately designed to mislead and deceive the community.

Not one of the accusers then nor the reformists today dispute the office of dai or that the present syedna and his father are not the rightful claimants to this office. What is being asserted then and even now is that as dai, no one can perform acts which are illegal, unethical or immoral in the eyes of the law of the land and which are not in strict conformance according to our own scriptures like the quran, daim ul islam, and the writings and practices of our imams and subsequent dai’s like syedna hatim and upto the 50th dai.

brother sauga dude, the last 2 syednas have become such past masters at twisting facts that even presidents and prime ministers have fallen prey to their falsehoods and cunning deceit. So people like you and me are small fry. Learning from the chandabhai galla case, syedna immediately started plotting to become sole trustee of all bohra community properties worldwide so that he would never have to answer to anyone ever again. the Udaipur case further accelerated this process.

The past dai’s strictly confined themselves to providing spiritual guidance and conversion activities or daawah. They did not interfere in the running of individual jamaats, they did not collect any monies or administer community’s properties or funds. They were highly respected and admired for their simplicity and missionary zeal. They were true Islamic leaders and did not claim to be gods on earth. In fact they guided us through very difficult times of religious and political persecution, when bohras were generally poor and suffered much hardship. Still they did not become greedy and ambitious with material and temporal lust as the last 2 syednas have done in good times, when we are no longer suffering religious or political persecution. For them now to claim that we have prospered because of them is another falsehood cleverly twisted to manipulate the community. In fact over the last 50 years, the bohras have lost their dominant position in businesses such as hardware, paints, glass, stationery materials and building and construction goods. Look around you in every major city and verify this for yrselves.

Having lived through these years and experienced the deceit, arrogance and tyranny of the kothar, all their actions are suspect. Each and everything they do has an ulterior aspect of making more money, increasing their power and grip over the community and consolidating their position as our absolute masters.

[Mubarak]

Dear brother 'sauga dude'
Please provide me your address to me on my e-mail address sinsaf@yahoo.com and I will send you the copy of original judgment copy + roz-nama.
The case against late Sayedna Saheb was filed for giving account of Chandabhoy Galla (1917-1921). The question of Nass was raised during Burhanpur Dargah case (1925).
Please do not be afraid your name and address shall not be disclosed to any one.

Dear brother Insaf saheb,

Thanks for your efforts, may Almighty Allah bless you for this.

I was wondering, if it is possible to publish PDF of these report on this website. Pardon me for asking if it is already available.

Best regards,

Mubarak

[Maqbool]

Yes AZ. your are right I confused that there were two cases and I mixed up. That is the reason I wrote "If I recall"

I will be obliged if Mr. Insaf post the original court judgment for both the cases on this board so that the misconception will be removed.

[Smart]

I would also like to read the transcripts of these and other cases. Insafbhai, please post it here. Let the truth come out.

[S. Insaf]

Friends from both sides of the divide,
I have the originals of day to day proceedings (Roz-nama) and also the final judgment delivered in Chandabhoy galla case, Burhanour Dargah case, Abde Fatema Nikah case, Bakhsha Moosa Dadhi case and present Excommunication Review Petition in the Supreme Court of India. Even their Judgments runs in to several pages. I am a retired person.
Therefore if some well-wisher is ready to get the required typing done in PDF form, he can contact me on my e-mail address and I will courier the sets of all the cases one by one.

[ozziebohra]

Has someone converted these to PDF as yet? would like to know the truth as to what actually happened...who actually won the chandabhoy galla case is one of the most asked about questions

[profastian]

Friends from both sides of the divide,
I have the originals of day to day proceedings (Roz-nama) and also the final judgment delivered in Chandabhoy galla case, Burhanour Dargah case, Abde Fatema Nikah case, Bakhsha Moosa Dadhi case and present Excommunication Review Petition in the Supreme Court of India. Even their Judgments runs in to several pages. I am a retired person.
Therefore if some well-wisher is ready to get the required typing done in PDF form, he can contact me on my e-mail address and I will courier the sets of all the cases one by one.

Nice excuse. Why not just scan them and post them here.

[Al Zulfiqar]

Nice excuse. Why not just scan them and post them here.

why dont u provide yr address and bhai insaf will mail out the copy to you? now dont make any nice excuses... u are in the majority, with the zaadas protecting u. u have nothing to fear. the reformists cannot do anything. in your own words, they are too few and too weak. so be a man, and declare yr address for the whole world to see. the syedna will reward you with mafsuhiyat and title of NKD. tamne jannat naseeb thase..

[humanbeing]

When did system / rule of Building Roza (Qubbah) / Musoleums of Dai’s came into practice ?

When did Placing of Gallas in the Qubbah came into practice ?

[Rationalist]

This might clarify some issues.

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/hi ... _CASE.html

MULLAJI CASE
(CHANDABHOY GULLA CASE)-19l8-19l9

The case known as the "Mullaji's Case" or " Chandabhoy Gulla Case", is among the longest and most remarkable cases ever tried in the High Court of Bombay. The suit was filed about 1918 or 1919 by the Advocate-General at the instance of certain relators, against the Mullaji Saheb, the High Priest of the Dawoodi Borah Community, as the principal defendant. It lasted for about six months before Mr. Justice Marten, and was heard during its most interesting and important stages, not in the High Court premises, but at first for a few days at the Judge's residence, and latterly in a private bungalow specially hired for the purpose.

As Sir Thomas Strangman, the Advocate-General, who filed the suit and appeared for the plaintiff throughout the trial, observes in his book "Indian Courts and Characters", the case is remarkable not only for its length, but for the amazing claims put forward on behalf of the Mullaji, the like of which have never been put forward in any Court of Law. The suit related to a mosque in Bombay known as the Chandabhoy Mosque and the tomb of Chandabhoy. There was no evidence to show that this man Chanda bhoy was anything but an ordinary trader like the rest of the Dawoodi Borahs; but for some mysterious reasons, after his death, his tomb came to be venerated as the shrine of a saint, whose intercession with God, purchased by means of prayers and donations offered at his tomb, would effect miraculous cures making the sick sound, the blind see, and the halt and lame move about, which belief had prevailed among the masses of the community for over a century at the time of the suit. The devotees made voluntary offerings at the tomb in cash and kind, placing them in a "gulla", or till, kept near the tomb. In course of time, these offerings amounted to very large sums of money; and after meeting the expenses of maintaining the mosque and the tomb, there remained large surpluses which were invested in various immoveable properties.

The main question in the suit was whether the mosque, the tomb, the offerings and the investments made from the surplus funds were charitable in the legal sense. Normally, there would be no question that they would constitute a public charity amenable to the jurisdiction of a civil tribunal. The position, however, was hotly contested on behalf of the Mullaji Saheb who was in charge of the mosque, tomb, funds and properties relating thereto. The question turned upon certain peculiar religious tenets of the Dawoodi Borahs and the peculiar position of the Mullaji Saheb in the eyes of his followers. According to the contentions put forward on his behalf there could be no trust enforceable in a Court of Law in regard to these properties, for the Mullaji, as ultimate representative of God on earth, was infallible and immaculate; he was accountable only to the "Imam in seclusion", whose immediate representative he was. Incidentally, it was denied that Chandabhoy was a saint, and it was contended on this account and for other technical reasons that neither the tomb, nor the offerings, nor the investments could form the subject of a charitable trust. Strangman remarks that the main contention raised a question not only of great importance but of the greatest interest, viz., whether there could be a trustee of earthly assets accountable for his trust to no earthly tribunal.

The case created considerable excitement in the community. Matters had come to such a pass that the Mullaji had excommunicated the persons who put the Advocate-General in motion, and who, although members of the Dawoodi Borah Community, were hostile to the Mullaji Saheb. "Naturally enough" says Strangman, "with feeling running so high and the vast bulk of the community solidly behind the Mullaji, it was difficult for me to obtain evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of my case. Although from first to last the Mullaji kept his people in strict check, it required considerable courage for any member of the community, what ever his belief, to go into the box and face a Court crowded with the more fervent element of the Mullaji's supporters." Summing up his position, Strangman remarks that "when I closed my case, I felt there were so many gaps that it was doubtful whether, even if the evidence stood alone and unchallenged, it would suffice for a decree in my favour. The Mullaji and his supporters were, however, all anxious to give evidence. The defendants' counsel were reluctant to take the risk of leaving the record as it stood: the Mullaji and many of his principal supporters, a vast host, went into the box. My case was proved with their aid and that of a number of documents which began to filter into the hands of my solicitors."

Strangman shortly summarises the peculiar religious beliefs of the Dawoodi Borahs, who, although Shiah Muslims, held their head priest or spiritual leader in profound and peculiar veneration as a divine or semi-divine personality. It appears that Almustansir, the Eighth Fatimite Khalif of Egypt, regarded by his followers as the Eighteenth Imam, and who reigned about the time of William the Conqueror, sent a missionary to Yemen in Arabia, not only to preach the Shiah Faith of the Fatimite Khalif, but also to rule over the country. The missionary and his successors were known as the "Sultanis" or "Dais" of Yemen. On the death of the Eighteenth Imam, a dispute arose regarding his succession, and the Sect was divided into two.

According to the Borah faith, the last revealed Imam was Tayeb, who succeeded as the twenty-first Imam in the early part of the twelfth century, and subsequently went into "seclusion", i.e., withdrew himself from the world. According to this faith, there has been a regular succession of Imams since the death of Tayeb, though all of them have been in seclusion. The Imam as representative of the Prophet, and through him the representative of God, having withdrawn from the world, someone must represent him, and so ultimately the Deity on earth. The Dai, according to their belief, is that representative. In the 16th century the Dai ceased to be Sultani in Yemen and migrated to Guzerat. The Mullaji against whom the suit was filed was the Fifty-first Dai, the line having been carried on by the holder of the office appointing, during his lifetime, his successor. As Sultanis in Yemen the Dais no doubt had sovereign powers: it was not claimed that any of these sovereign powers survived after their migration to India.

During the trial, the plaintiff gave up the prayer to have fresh trustees appointed or to deprive the Mullaji of his management of the suit properties. It was not alleged that there had been any misapplication of the Gulla funds, nor that there had been any breach of trust, apart from the denial of the trust.

Although the defendants admitted that on the death of the Dai the properties passed on to his successor in office, they still argued that there was no charitable trust enforceable in a court of law, and that the Mullaji Saheb was not accountable to anybody except the Imam in seclusion. The argument was based on the tenet that the Mullaji Saheb was the representative of God on earth and as such was infallible and immaculate; he was also the Master not only of the property, but also of the mind, body and soul of each of his followers who were bound to obey him implicitly and could not question his acts. The defendants contended that infallibility was inconsistent with accountability as a trustee, and mastership was inconsistent with trusteeship. The Dai was the absolute owner of the Gulla offerings given to him as "Dhani", "Malik" or owner.


In the earlier stages of the trial, it was contended for the defendants that the Mullaji Saheb was in fact God, or for all practical purposes God, and that this suit was a sacrilege. This contention was, however, eventually withdrawn.

Marten J. who tried this protracted suit, held that it was incorrect to say that Mullaji Saheb was in effect God, or for all practical purposes God, or that it was a sacrilege to bring the present suit. He said that the Dai's powers were at least thrice delegated: viz. by God to the Prophet, by the Prophet to the Imam, and by the Imam to the Dai-ul-Mutlak. The Judge wound up this part of the defendants' case with the trenchant remark, "spiritual heads of communities are not generally remarkable for the modesty with which they state their pretensions".

Referring to the religious books on which the defendants relied, the judge observed that in none of those books was there any indication of the claim, which the Mullaji was specifically putting forward, as regards the Dai being the absolute owner of everything appertaining to the community. Reliance was placed on certain texts of the Koran. Referring to them, Marten J. observed that he was not satisfied that the scriptures substantiated the claims of the Mullaji to ownership of the minds and properties of the followers. He referred to the evidence in a Surat case given by the defendant's father, the 49th Dai, to the effect that he claimed not the slightest interest in the property; and observed that the attitude taken up by the 49th Dai was totally inconsistent with the claims put forward by his son, the present Mullaji. Moreover, the defendants could not produce a single instance of such extreme claims having been exercised by any Mullaji prior to the present suit; and the defendants' own witnesses made it clear that these claims were at best purely theoretical. The judge concluded that the defendants' claims were the result of the stress of the suit, and that it they ever existed before the trial, nobody regarded them seriously or as giving any legal rights.

Proceeding, the judge observed "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."

The judge then referred to a book published by the Borah community, of which the latest edition was edited by the Mullaji. In this book, the Dai was referred to as "the trustee of the public funds of the community which it is his duty to dispose of economically as directed by the sacred laws of Islam". Considering all the circumstances, the judge held that all the properties in respect of which the declaration was sought were devoted to charitable purposes and that the Mullaji was a trustee thereof. The contention that there could be no Wakf of moveable property was rejected.

As regards non-accountability, he observed: "this claim is all the more surprising, because in effect it involves the infallibility of some 266 Amils (higher officials) and numerous other managers and officers under the Mullaji. No man can manage personally 648 mosques, to say nothing of 69 gullas. The Mullaji must therefore act by agents. If then any such agent is corrupt or negligent, why should the community be without a remedy against him?" He, therefore, held that the Mullaji was theoretically accountable; but that no case had been made out for interfering with the management of the properties or for directing any accounts against him.

An appeal was presented against this judgment by the Mullaji Saheb, but the same was allowed to be dismissed on an adjustment being made in the decree of the trial court by the insertion of a proviso to one of the clauses: "Provided that the said third defendant Sirdar Saiyedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb and his successors in office may at any time place a box or other receptacle at any place outside the actual area covered by the enclosure in which the said tomb (of Chandabhoy) is situate, and indicate on or in the neighbourhood of such box that any offering placed therein is at the absolute disposal of the Dai-ul-Mutlak of the Dawoodi Borah community for any purpose charitable or not charitable as the said Dai-ul-Mutlak may direct. Declare that the decree in no way decides whether any other gulla funds or the general Dawat (administration) funds are charitable funds or not charitable funds." This clause was probably meant to be a face-saving device which would give the Dai-ul-Mutlak the right of absolute disposal as regards certain offerings. The language proposed ,to be written on the box however made it obvious that in so far as the absolute authority was limited to the box in question, the Dai-ul-Mutlak had no such authority over the other trust funds.

Concluding his account of this extraordinary case Strangman remarks: "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."

[Bori85]

good replies biradar.

i just wish to add for 'sauga dude that immediately post the chandabhai galla case which the syedna lost, he arranged a huge procession to be taken out in mumbai and other major cities of india where bohras reside, to celebrate his 'fateh mubin'.

when the presiding judge heard about this later, a writ summons was issued on syedna taher saifuddin, asking him why he should not be held in contempt of court and asked for explanations, failing which he could be jailed if the maximum extent of the law was applied.

the wily politicians that they are, syedna issued a vague letter of apology and promised in writing not to repeat this again.

the inner facts always remain hidden from the vast majority of our people, the outward lies and falsehoods prevail. there is no treatment for the ignorance of our people, esp when its wilful and they prefer remaining so. you can take a horse to the water, you cannot make it drink.

I am still confused about this Chandabhai Galla case, if Taher Saifuddin lost the case then who are the winners, where are they, and what did they "win" I mean , what is it they were fighting for - the Galla of Chandabhai ziyarat. Also, lets say if Taher Saifudding won the case, then what did he and Kothar benefited by this winning. As now we are seeing that all the duat's ziyarat Gallas are going to the Kothar, so that means, did he actually win the case?

[Rationalist]

"
Provided that the said third defendant Sirdar Saiyedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb and his successors in office may at any time place a box or other receptacle at any place outside the actual area covered by the enclosure in which the said tomb (of Chandabhoy) is situate, and indicate on or in the neighbourhood of such box that any offering placed therein is at the absolute disposal of the Dai-ul-Mutlak of the Dawoodi Borah community for any purpose charitable or not charitable as the said Dai-ul-Mutlak may direct.

Can't he even spare the galla money solely for charity?

[humanbeing]

When did system / rule of Building Roza (Qubbah) / Musoleums of Dai’s came into practice ?

When did Placing of Gallas in the Qubbah came into practice ?

[seeker110]

I am certain there is a budget cut in Agarbatti use at the Ziarats. This is a 100% profit organization. Even the childrens piggy bank is not safe. I hope greed kills their taste buds, and life becomes too painful.

[ghulam muhammed]

Herein below are extracts of an article posted on this forum some years back regarding Chandabhai Galla case :-

The advocate general summed up by saying, "Whether Mullaji Sahib is Dai-ul Mutlaq, Imam, Prophet or God, it has no relevance to the case. I only want to establish that he is a trustee and as such he is bound to render account." When the sons of Sir Adamji Peerbhoy demanded an account of the money collected from the charity box (Gulla) kept at the shrine of Chandabhai from Yousufali Bandukwalla, a trustee of the Gulla, evasive replies were received. Saifuddin Sahib declared himself to be the owner of the Gulla and accountable only to the Imam in seclusion. Hence no one had the right to demand an account from him. However a suit was filed in the high court of Mumbai for failure to render account of the Gulla. This was the famous Chandabhai Gulla case (No 941 of 1917). The plaintiffs were Karimbhoy, son of Sir Adamji, Sharafali Mamooji and Jeewanali Rajabali of Udaipur. The defendants were Yousufali Ibrahimji Bandukwalla, Shamsuddin Muhammadali, a partner in Yousufali's firm looking after the Gulla and Saifuddin Sahib. The case was heard by Justice Martin. The advocate general opened the case on behalf of the plaintiffs and asked Saifuddin Sahib if Chandabhai was a 'Vali' (saint) and that he was a trustee of the Gulla placed at the shrine. He denied it with disdain. He also denied that Fakhruddin Shaheed in Galiakot and Syedi Hakimuddin in Burhanpur were saints, because according to him a Dai-ul Mutlaq alone could be a Vali. He maintained that he was the owner of the property and souls of all the Dawoodis and that he could not be treated as a trustee accountable to them. Later under cross examination he admitted that Syedi Hakimuddin, Fakhruddin Shaheed and Chandabhai were all Valis (saints).

On the question of interest he confessed that his father (Burhanuddin Sahib) and grandfather (Najmuddin Sahib) borrowed money on interest and that his predecessor (Abdullah Badruddin Sahib) lent Rs 50,000 to Isabhai Motabhai on compound interest. Thus according to him payment and receipt of interest was perfectly legitimate under certain circumstances and he believed that it was sanctioned in "Da-aaemul Islam". At one stage of the proceedings he even claimed to be God on earth. It is said that such a fantastic claim created a stir in the Muslim world and he had to withdraw his statement. During the hearing some papers were produced showing that there had been a dispute between Sir Adamji Peerbhoy and Burhanuddin Sahib. Saifuddin Sahib confirmed. Finally the case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. Saifuddin Sahib was declared a trustee fully accountable for the money collected in the Chandabhai Gulla and the plaintiffs were awarded three fourths of the cost which was borne by Saifuddin Sahib.

Later on, :-
Tayebbhai Thanawalla who had been a witness in the Chandabhai Gulla case was assaulted and his ears were cut off. The culprit in this case was caught and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

In 1920 the homes of Sheikh Faizullahbhai Hamdani and Sheikh Ismailbhai Luqmani were invaded by a mob. They pelted stones and threatened to set fire simply because they had performed the 'nikaah' of Hatimbhai, son of Sheikh Faizullahbhai, with the daughter of Sheikh Ismailbhai without the consent of Saifuddin Sahib. In fact he had withheld his consent because both of these dignitaries had given witness against him in the Chandabhai Gulla case.

Stones and mud were thrown at the coffin of Sharafali Mamooji. It was he who, in conjunction with Karimbhoy Sir Adamji, had demanded the account of the Gulla placed at the Chandabhai shrine. Ibrahim Sir Adamji was brutally assaulted by hired goondas but luckily he survived. The goondas were Muhammadali Hakimji, Roshanali Muhammadali Rangwalla and Ismail Tayebali. They were apprehended and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labor and a fine of Rs 1,000. The servant of Fazalbhai Hakimuddin named Jaafar was murdered because he was an eye witness to certain criminal incidents.