Kerala High Court Allows Petition Entitling Review Applicants to Hold Property

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

 

On 6th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving division bench judge of the Honourable Mr Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Honourable Mr Justice T.R. Ravi heard the case of Darul Huda Masjid Mahallu Committee vs Unknown.

Facts of the Case

The dispute involved in these revision petitions is regarding the right of management of a Wakf property. It was filed by the revision petitioner hereinbefore the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing the management of the plaint schedule property. It was filed by the respondents herein seeking a decree of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.

The properties originally belonged to Ahammed Abdul Haleem who executed a Wakf deed in 1954. He managed the wakf till his death. As per the Wakf deed, his male children are entitled to manage the wakf and if he left no male children, the management of the Wakf property has to be done by the Palli Karnavan of the Kokkur Juma Mosque, the respondent.

The Wakif died without leaving any children, and hence according to the Kokkur Juma Mosque Committee, they alone have the right to manage the property.  

Petitioner’s Arguments

According to the revision petitioners, the right of management of the masjid vested upon a committee which included a member of the family of the Wakif. The petitioners contended that they alone have the right to manage the property. According to the revision petitioners, even though the Wakf deed was executed in 1954, due to the existence of a temple, the construction of a mosque as intended by the Wakif, did not materialise.

In 1957, another property on the northern side was given from the family of the Wakif as a Wakf, wherein a mosque and a madrassa were constructed and the same is functioning there. During the partition of the properties, the property wherein the mosque situated was dedicated as a Wakf. Later in 1965-66, the above mosque was converted into a Jama-ath mosque.

It is contended that the property was being managed by the Darul Huda Masjid Committee even during the lifetime of the Wakif himself. It is further submitted that since the Wakif was happy with the functioning of the committee, he had handed over the original documents relating to the plaint schedule property to the committee.

According to the revision petitioners, they have been managing the property for more than 30 years and the respondents who are residing in the same locality were aware of the above facts.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, on the other hand, submits that the question relating to maintainability is raised for the first time before this Court and that no such contention was taken either before the Wakf Tribunal or even in the Memorandum of Revision before this Court. She further submits that even the pleadings in the case do not specifically raise such an issue. It is contended that such a contention ought not to be entertained at this stage after the passage of so many years.

On merits of the contention, she contends that the suit is not one for removal of encroachment under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, so as to necessitate a proceeding before the CEO.

According to the respondent, the suit is one of recovery of possession simpliciter and the respondents have no case that the revision petitioners are encroachers on the land and the relief is sought for only on the basis of the recitals in the Wakf deed which specifically says that the right to manage shall come vested in the respondents, on the happening of the event contemplated in the Wakf, that is, the Wakif leaving behind no successors.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed into the case Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyupura Pookoya Haji v. Pattakkal Cheriyakoya [(2003) 3 KLT 32]. The Division Bench held that if the reasoning of the learned Judge is upheld it will be restricting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal considerably, thereby narrowing the scope and ambit of Section 83 read with Section 85 and other related provisions. The court also observed into several provisions in the Wakf Act like Sections 6732(3)54(4)33(4)38(7)39(3)40(2)48(2)51(5)52(4)64(4)67(4), 67(6), 69(3), 73(3), 83(2) and 94.

Court’s Decision

The Court allowed the revision petitions. The decree of previous judgement was set aside and the suit was dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal; whether it be for recovery of possession or removal of encroachment if it is the latter as the provision stood prior to 2013. In so far as the suit filed by the revision petitioner, admittedly they are in possession of the property.  

The previous judgment was set aside and the suit was decreed restraining the respondents therein from obstructing the management of the plaint schedule property by the revision petitioners; unless in accordance with the law. It is made clear that this judgment will not in any way prejudice the right of the respondents to prefer a petition/suit for the same reliefs before the appropriate forum.

Click here to view full judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -