The appointment of a Mutavalli by the Wakf Board is valid and binding, and the scope of judicial review in WAKF matters is limited to assessing the legality and propriety of Tribunal decisions without reappraising evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision is filed by the defendants in KWT/BJR/SR//OS-5/2012 being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 5/8/2015 by the Presiding Officer, Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff under Sec. 83(9) of the WAKF Act, 1995.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts are as under:

(a) The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants seeking decree of declaration that he is the hereditary Mutavallicum-Sajjad Nashin of the suit Dargah and mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from encroaching the suit property.

(b) He contended that Dargah Hazarat Sayyed Mohammad Bukhari @ Peer Jalal Bukhari @ Peer Jalal Bukhari (hereinafter referred to as 'Dargah') situated in CTS No.1595, SY.No.256/3A of Ward No.VI of Vijayapura, measuring about 10 guntas is the suit property and it now bears CTS No.1595/2. He further contended that he is hereditary Sajjada Nashin -cum-Mutavalli of the said Dargah and is performing the religious functions. It was alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the trespassers and have encroached upon the suit property. The defendant No.5, the Karnataka State Wakf Board recognized him as Sajjada Nashin and appointed him as Mutavalli. It was alleged that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 tried to encroach on the suit property and the defendant No.1 buried his wife in the suit property high handedly by trespassing into the property and therefore, the plaintiff had filed a suit bearing No.KWT/BJR/SR-4-2006 which came to be dismissed on 31/10/2008 holding that the plaintiff had not proved that he is a Mutavalli of the Dargah. He further contended that against the said dismissal, plaintiff preferred Writ Petition No.40761/2008 before this Court and the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 4/11/2011 permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the said suit and to file a fresh comprehensive suit on the same cause of action. Consequently, the judgment of dismissal in the said suit was quashed.

(c) He contended that after disposal of the said suit, and during the pendency of Writ Petition No.40761/2008, the plaintiff has been appointed as the Mutavalli of the suit Dargah by defendant No.5 vide its order dtd. 13/10/2009. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking declaration that he be declared as the Mutavalli- cum- Sajjada Nashin of the Dargah and the encroachment by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 be removed by way of mandatory injunction and they be restrained from encroaching into the suit property. He also contended that the defendant No.5 had filed an application before the ADLR, Vijayapura, for measurement and to know about the extent of encroachment by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. After survey, the ADLR, Vijayapura, gave a report demarcating the area encroached by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. In the meanwhile, one Lala Sab son of Mohiddin Sab Karajagi, had filed OS No.3/2007 seeking declaration that the Certificate of Registration of the Wakf dtd. 25/8/1996 pertaining to the suit Dargah be declared as null and void and it was dismissed on 25/1/2008.

(d) Similarly, one Mohiddin Baig Rahim Baig Inamdhar had filed OS No.5/2010 to declare that the order dtd. 3/6/2009 passed by the Law Committee of the Wakf Board in LCC No.3/1996 and the gazette notification thereof appointing the plaintiff as Mutavalli are null and void and the said suit also came to be dismissed on 20/6/2012.

(e) Therefore, the plaintiff contended that he is the Mutavalli and Sajjada Nashin as per the orders passed by defendant No.5 and the said orders of the defendant No.5 are not challenged by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and as such, the suit deserves to be decreed.

4. During the pendency of the suit defendant No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendant Nos. 1 (a) to (e).

5. In response to the suit summons, the defendant No.1(a)