AKKODE JUMAYATH PALU PARIPALANA COMMITTEEversusP.V. IBRAHIM HAJI AND OTHERS

                   [2013] 7 S.C.R. 1033


 AKKODE JUMAYATH PALU PARIPALANA COMMITTEE                      A
                              v.
            P.V. IBRAHIM HAJI AND OTHERS
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 6124-6125 of 2013)
                       JULY 23, 2013
                                                                B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

    Wakf Act:
     Wakf Tribunal - Jurisdiction of - Suit for perpetual C
injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from
interfering in administration, management and peaceful
possession and enjoyment of Mosque - Held: Dispute is with
regard .to management and peaceful enjoyment of Mosque
and madrassa and assets which relate to Wakf -- Nature of
relief shows that Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide D
the disputes - There is no error in the Wakf Tribunal
entertaining the suit -- High Court committed an error in
holding otherwise - Order passed by High Court is set aside
and the matter remitted to it to consider the revision on merits
- Suit.                                                          E
     Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Sugra
                                                 =
Humayun Mirza Wakf 2010 (10 ) SCR 945 2010 (8) SCC
726; Board of Wakf, West Bengal and Another v. Anis Fatma
Begum and Another 2010 (13) SCR 1063 = 2010 (14) SCC
588 ·- referred to.
                                                                F

                     Case Law Reference:
    2010 (10) SCR 945              referred to       para 6
    2010 (13) SCR 1063             referred to       para 6
                                                                G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
6124-6125 of 2013.
    From the Judgment and Order dted 10.11.2010 of the

                            1033                                H
    1034     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A   High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP No. 1362 of 2004
    and 04.02.2011 in RP No. 87 of 2011.
         K. Rajeev for the Appellant.
        P.V. Dinesh, Bineesh K., Sunil K. Tripathi, Shantanu for the
8   Respondents.
         The order of the Court was delivered by
         K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
          2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal
c   is whether the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a
    suit for injunctiQh restraining the defendants from interfering with
    the administration, management and peaceful enjoyment of the
    Mosque and ma"drassa run by it and all the assets attached to
    the Mosque.
D      3. Appellant, a. society registered under the Societies
  Registration Act stated to be formed for the management and
  administration of wakf property including a Mosque situated
  therein, filed a suit for an injunction before the Court of Munsiff,
  Manjeri, which was transferred to the Court of Wakf Tribunal,
E Kozhikode and numbered as O.S. No.53 of 2003. The suit was
  contested by the respondents on merits and ultimately it was
  decreed by the Wakf Tribunal on 28.09.2004 and the plaintiff
  was given a decree for a perpetual injunction restraining the
  defendants/respondents and their men from interfering in any
F manner in the administration, management and peaceful and
  possession and enjoyment of the Mosque, namely, Akkode
  Juyamath Palli, the madrassa run by it and all the assets
  attached to the Mosque.
       4. The respondents herein filed Civil Revision Petition as
G CRP No.1362 of 2004 under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act
  before the Kerala High Court. The High Court vide its judgment
  dated 10.11.2010 set aside the judgment and decree passed
  by the Wakf Tribunal holding that a suit for injunction is not
  maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the
H Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through
AKKODE Jl,JMAYATH PALU PARIPALANACOMMITTEE v.1035
    P.V. IBRAHIM HAJI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf 2010 (8) SCC 726. The                  A
Court also granted permission to the appellant to take back the
plaint for presenting before the appropriate court. Later the
appellant preferred a Review Petition which was also
dismissed by the High court on 04.02.2011. The legality of the
orders is under challenge in this appeal.                               B
     5. We are of the view that the High Court has committed
an error in holding that the reliefs sought for by the appellants
in the suit could not be claimed before the Wakf Tribunal in view
of the Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead)
Through Lrs. (supra). In Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through                C
Lrs. (supra) the question that arose for consideration before this
Court was whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section
83 of the Wakf Act was competent to entertain and adjudicate
upon disputes regarding eviction of the appellants who were
occupying different items of which were admittedly wakf                 D
properties. The Wakf Tribunal answered the question of
jurisdiction in affirmative and decreed the suit which was
affirmed by the High Court. This Court, after examining the
various provisions of the Wakf Act and Section 9 of the Code
of Civil Procedure in paras 34 and 35 of the Judgment held as           E
follows:
    "34. The crucial question that shall have to be answered
    in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the
    jurisdiction of the civil court is raised is whether the Tribunal
    is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the             F
    matter sought to be brought before a civil court. If it is not,
    the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. But if the
    Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of
    the civil court would stand excluded.
    35. In the cases at hand, the Act does not provide for any          G
    proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a
    dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation
    of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor
    and the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction
                                                                        H
    1036       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 7 S.C.R.


A          of the tenants from what is admittedly wakf property could,
           therefore, be filed only before the civil court and not before
           the Tribunal."
        6. This Court allowed the appeals and the orders passed
   by the Wakf Tribunal were set aside and the suit filed by the
B respondents for eviction of the appellants before the Tribunal
  was held not maintainable. The ratio laid down in the above-
  mentioned Judgment later came up for consideration before
  this Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal and Another v. Anis
   Fatma Begum and Another 2010 (14) SCC 588 and the
C Judgment in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs. (supra)
  was held distinguishable. That was a case where the dispute
   related to the Wakf Estate which was created by registered
  deed of Wakf dated 22.09.1936. The question raised was with
  regard to the demarcation of the Wakf property, which this Court
D held is a matter which fell under the purview of the Wakf Act.
  The judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held otherwise
  was set aside and this Court held that the Wakf Tribunal has
  jurisdiction to decide those disputes. ·
       7. We are of the view that the dispute that arises for
E consideration in this case is with regard to the management
  and peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque and madrassa and the
  assets which relate to Wakf. Nature of the relief clearly shows
  that the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide those
  disputes. We, therefore, find no error in the Wakf Tribunal
F entertaining O.S. No.53 of 2003 filed by the appellant and the
  High Court has committed an error in holding otherwise.
  Consequently the impugned. order passed by the High Court
  is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to
  consider the revision on merits. The appeals are disposed of
G as above, with no order as to costs.

    R.P.                                         Appeals disposed of.