IMPORTANT POINT
The question whether a property is Wakf property or not or dispute of sale of Wakf property by anybody not connected with the affairs of the Wakf can be decided only by Wakf Tribunal and not by Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed by defendant No.6 against the final judgment and order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in CRP No.400 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein and set aside the order dated 22.02.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur, wherein the Tribunal decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.6 herein against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in respect of the suit land.

3) In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state the relevant facts infra.

4) The appellant herein is defendant No. 6 whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 6 is the plaintiff in a suit out of which this appeal arises.

5) The appellant is a Wakf Board registered under the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It has an office at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan.

6) There is a property called "Kauria Wali Masjid" situated in Town Hindaun, Tehsil Hindaun Barpara District Karauli, Rajasthan. The property is registered as "Wakf" at Serial No. 23, Page No.116 in the list of Wakf published under Section 5 of the Act. Respondent No. 6 is the Mutawali of the Masjid.

7) On 05.06.1998, respondent No.5 claiming to be the owner of the land situated adjacent to “Kauria Wali Masjid” property measuring 37 feet x 34 feet (hereinafter called the “suit land”) sold to respondent Nos.1 to 4 by deed of sale. This sale gave rise to the dispute between the Wakf represented by respondent No. 6 on the one hand and Respondent Nos.1 to 5 on the other.

8) Respondent No.6 filed a suit against respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the appellant before the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal at Jaipur. The foundation on which respondent No. 6 (plaintiff) filed the suit for claiming relief therein, inter alia, was that the “suit land” is the Wakf property or, in other words, a part of the Wakf property and hence respondent No.5, who is an individual and unconnected with the affairs of the Wakf, had no right, title and interest to sell the suit land to anyone much less to respondent Nos.1 to 4. It was alleged that the sale of the suit land was equally in contravention of Section 51 of the Act and hence the same was void and illegal (para 7 of the plaint). It was also alleged that even the plaintiff, who is a Mutawali of the Masjid (wakf), had no right to sell the Wakf property or/and any of its part without following the due procedure prescribed under the Act. Respondent No.6, therefore, claimed a relief that firstly, respondent Nos.1 to 4 (defendant Nos.1 to 4) should not forcibly take possession of the suit land and in the alternate the sale in question be declared void.

9) Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the written statement and denied the claim set up by respondent No.6 in the plaint. According to them, the suit land was neither the Wakf property and nor a part of any Wakf property. It was alleged that respondent No.5 being the owner of the suit land had every right to sell the suit land to respondent Nos.1 to 4 and which he did by executing the sale deed. It was also alleged that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the remedy of the plaintiff is to file civil suit before the Civil Court for claiming appropriate reliefs. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues for adjudication:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to file the case?
        2. Whether the property in suit is the part of Masjid Kauria Wali?
 3. Whether this Board has no jurisdiction to entertain this case?
        4. Whether the case is time barred?
        5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?”

10) The parties adduced evidence. By order dated 22.02.2001, the Tribunal decreed the suit and accordingly passed an order against respondent Nos.1 to 5. It was held that fir