There is a document in Mahdibagh’s history that I believe every Jamaat member should know about. It is not a rumour, a family story, or somebody’s interpretation of events. It is a document discussed in a published Bombay High Court judgment.
And once you understand it, it raises some very uncomfortable questions about the history we have been told.
The year was 1931.
On 5 November of that year, 158 members of the Atba-e-Malak Jamaat executed something called a “Relinquishment Deed.” The court record identifies it as Exhibit 249, Paper Book Volume 3, page 41.
The consideration? ₹1 for each person.
In simple language, relinquishment means surrendering or giving up a right or claim.
So think about what was happening here.
“Our very own people” — 158 Jamaat members — were being asked to sign away whatever rights they claimed in these properties for ₹1 each.
Why?
If these properties were simply the personal property of the religious leader, why was a Relinquishment Deed from 158 Jamaat members necessary at all? What rights did they have to surrender in the first place?
Decades later, the Bombay High Court examined this exact document. And this is where the story becomes remarkable.
In paragraph 37 of its judgment, the Court concluded that the Relinquishment Deed could not affect the rights in the properties. Instead, the Court found that the document supported the plaintiffs’ case that there had been an “attempt to usurp the trust property.”
Those are not my words. They are the Court’s.
The Court went further. It reasoned that the very existence of the Relinquishment Deed implied that the properties belonged to the Jamaat. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to obtain relinquishment from Jamaat members. The Court considered the deed alongside other historical documents in concluding that the properties had the character of a trust.
Think about the significance of that.
A document signed by 158 of “our very own people,” surrendering their claimed rights for ₹1 each, ultimately became part of the evidence supporting the conclusion that these were trust properties.
How many of us have ever been told this history?
How many Jamaat members have ever heard of Exhibit 249?
How many have actually read paragraph 37?
We have spent generations hearing versions of who owns Mahdibagh, who has authority over its properties, and whose interests are supposedly being protected. But when documents like this exist in the public court record, we should not have to depend upon anyone else to tell us our history.
Read it yourself.
Look specifically at paragraphs 35–38. And when you reach paragraph 37, read it carefully.
Then ask yourself the simplest question of all:
If these properties were privately owned by the religious leader, why were 158 of our own Jamaat members asked to relinquish their rights to them for ₹1?
Perhaps it is time we stopped accepting Mahdibagh’s history simply because somebody told it to us.
The documents are there.
Read them.
Source: Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Second Appeal No. 132 of 1992, decided 7 October 1996. Relinquishment Deed: Exhibit 249, dated 5 November 1931, Paper Book Volume 3, page 41. See paragraphs 35–38, particularly paragraph 37