Chandabhoy Galla Case

<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 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on basis of the belief that Imam, as representative of the Prophet and through him the representative of God, having withdrawn from the world, must entrust someone to represent them-- to be a deity on earth-- the "Dai al-Mutlaq" (and hence Saifuddin), in accordance with the Tayyibi religious belief, is that sole representative.<section end=galla/>
The trusteeship of the money donated via a "Galla" () 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. 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.
Had Abdul Qadir Najmuddin's appointment not upheld by the court, validity of the subsequent 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:
<section begin=strangmanquote/>Upon conclusion of the case, Strangman noted:
During Taher Saifuddin's testimony, he clarified about existence of knowledge classes of "Zahir", "Tawil", and "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.
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" () in favor of Qutub Shah, instead. In another instance in 2014, 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 despite lack of mainstream recognition.