Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
P. Nazeer Etc. - Appellant
Versus
Salafi Trust & Anr. Etc. - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3132-3133 of 2016
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Waqf Act, 1995 – Section 83(9), Proviso – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Declaratory suit – Though Tribunal granted the relief of injunction, Tribunal refused relief of declaration – Society registered under Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye-laws – Unless plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that person who signed and verified pleadings was authorised by bye-laws to do so, suit cannot be entertained – Fact that plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence unless bye-laws support institution of such a suit – Waqf Tribunal committed gross illegality, first in not framing an issue about status of Mahal Committee and then in recording a finding as though local unit of a registered society which is in enjoyment of affiliated status, was entitled to sue – Such an illegality committed by Tribunal was liable to be corrected by High Court under its revisional jurisdiction – Appellants rightly understood that certificate sought to dislodge their claim to be in management and administration of mosque – Rejection by Waqf Tribunal, of prayer for declaring certificate to be null and void was fatal to their claim – Yet appellants did not choose to file revision – Today they cannot take umbrage under the fact that in any case, Tribunal found them to be in management and administration of Waqf – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 5, 6, 15, 16, 17 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Aggrieved by a common Judgment delivered by High Court of Kerala in two Civil Revision Petitions filed under the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of Waqf Act, 1995, reversing judgment of the Waqf Tribunal and decreeing the suit of the respondents in entirety, but dismissing their own suit, the appellants have come up with present civil appeals.
Findings of Court:
Once it is admitted that it was the first respondent namely the Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a Waqf under Section 36 of the Act and once it is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 2 of their plaint in OS No.9 of 2004 that the mosque was constructed in a vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Aggrieved by a common Judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala in two Civil Revision Petitions filed under the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, reversing the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal and decreeing the suit of the respondents in entirety, but dismissing their own suit, the appellants have come up with the above civil appeals.
2. We have heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the private contesting respondents.
3. The sole appellant in one of the above appeals by name Shri P. Nazeer was the defendant in a suit O.S. No. 10 of 2004 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, on the file of Waqf Tribunal, Kollam. The three appellants in the other civil appeal were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 9 of 2004 filed on the file of very same Waqf Tribunal, Kollam. Since the appeals on hand arose out of cross-suits between the same parties and also since the subject matter of the dispute relates to the right to management and administration of a mosque and its properties, it will be easy to appreciate the facts, if presented in a tabular column :
| Suit No. | Names of Plaintiffs | Fames of defendant | Reliefs sought | Reliefs granted by Waqf Tribunal |
| OS No.9 of 2004 | 1. Salafi Juma Masjid Mahal Committee 2. K.M. Syed, President 3. P. Nazeer, Secretary | 1. Salafi Trust 2. H.E. Ahmed Thahir Sait, Vice President 3. A.K. Babu, Secretary 4. O.M. Khan, Salabhavan 5. S. Rasheed, Cashier 6. The CEO, Kerala Waqf Board, 7. Kerala Waqf Board | (i) pass a decree declaring that the document No.2 issued by the 6th Defendant is null and void. (ii) Issue a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants No.1 to 4 their men, agents and supporters from interfering into or obstructing the management and administration of plaint schedule mosque and its institutions by the Plaintiff Committee. | 1. The relief of declaration was rejected. 2. The relief of permanent injunction granted restraining defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the management and administration of the plaint schedule waqf and its institutions. |
| OS No.10 of 2004 | 1. Salafi Trust 2. A.K. Babu | P. Nazeer | (i) Declaring that the 2nd Plaintiff is the Secretary of the 1st Defendant Trust. (ii) Restraining the Defendant or anybody under him by permanent injunction from interfering with administration & management of the 1st Plaintiff Trust and scheduled property by the 2nd Plaintiff as the Secretary of the 1st Plaintiff. | 1. Declaration that the second plaintiff A.K. Babu is the secretary of Salafi Trust is granted. 2. But the relief of permanent injunction is rejected. |
4. It is necessary to bring on record, before proceeding further, that document No. 2 in respect of which the appellants herein sought a declaration of nullity, in their own suit O.S. No. 9 of 2004, was a certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Kerala Waqf Board dated 24.03.2004 in favour of Salafi Trust. The said certificate reads as follows:
5. In other words the appellants in the second civil appeal before us, namely, (i) Salafi Juma Masjid Mahal Committee; (ii) its President K.M. Syed; and (iii) its Secretary P. Nazeer, sought two sets of reliefs from the Waqf Tribunal.
Declaratory suit – Unless plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that person who signed and verified pleadings was authorised by bye-laws to....
Point of Law : It is therefore evident that despite fact that revisionist was removed from his post as Mutawalli/Secretary of managing committee of waqf, application filed by him under Section 83(2) ....
A Waqf cannot be created within an existing Waqf, and the Waqf Board lacks authority to create new Waqfs under the Waqf Act.
when there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it must be inquired into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with intent....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Board in managing waqf properties, as well as the inapplicability of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in....
A suit challenging the assumption of charge of a Waqf Estate by the Board of Auqaf under Section 65(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 is not maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal unless the plaintiff challeng....
Expression ‘waqf by user’ finding place in Section 3 (r) (i) of the Act is a defined expression and is not qualified by any word to suggest that it has to be of immemorial user, the Court would have ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
