Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
AMIR ABDUL RASHEED - Appellant
versus
ABDUL HALEEM - Respondent
RSA 272/2015 and C.M. No. 13087/2015
Decided On : 16-12-2015
Md. Mobin Akhtar & Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, Advocates.
Mr. M. Tariq Farooqi, Advocate.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in Wakf disputes is not barred unless the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as provided in Section 6 of the Wakf Act.
Headnote:
Wakf Dispute - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Section 85 of the Wakf Act - Section 6 of the Wakf Act - Ramesh Gobindram Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 IX AD (SC) 629
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit seeking injunction and rendition of accounts against the appellant, claiming possession and rights as a descendant of the Wakif. The Trial Court rejected the plaint invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on Section 85 of the Wakf Act, which bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Wakf disputes. The First Appellate Court reversed the decision, citing Ramesh Gobindram case, stating that Civil Courts' jurisdiction is excluded only in cases required to be determined by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the plaintiff's claim of possession and rights as a descendant of the Wakif sufficient to disclose a cause of action. It held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred unless the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as provided in Section 6 of the Wakf Act. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arises.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Wakf disputes, applicability of Section 85 of the Wakf Act, requirement to exhaust Section 70 remedy before filing a civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred unless the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as provided in Section 6 of the Wakf Act. It also rejected the requirement to exhaust Section 70 remedy before filing a civil suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely the ASCJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No.8/2013 preferred by the respondent/ plaintiff. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Trial Court, namely the Civil Judge, Central-03, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the plaint of the respondent/ plaintiff was rejected by invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2. The respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit in question to seek permanent & mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts against the appellant/ defendant on the premise that his father late Maulana Abdul Salam Bastawi had created a Wakf, which is presently been managed by the defendant – his nephew. The plaintiff discloses that he is in occupation of a room/ hall having his belongings, almirahs, books, etc. in the suit property. As per the said plaint filed by him, he was having a driving license, LPG connection, license for manufacturing small electronic goods issued by the MCD and electricity connection, etc., which showed his occupation of the suit property. He stated that he used to visit the property for carrying on research work in the library of late Maulana Abdul Salam Bastawi, which is a private Wakf. His grievance was that the defendant had, however, prohibited his entry into the premises, particularly into the portion where his belongings and books are kept in the library of late Maulana Abdul Salam Bastawi, as shown in the plan. Upon his being beaten up, he had filed a police complaint on 13.05.2012. He claimed that late Maulana Abdul Salam Bastawi had given the books/ library for the private Wakf. He claimed that being a descendant of late Maulana Abdul Salam Bastawi, he has the right to visit the library of late Maulana Abdul Salam Bastawi and enjoy the benefits of the Wakf properties. He also raised a grievance that the defendant is raising unauthorised construction in the suit property. He also raised a grievance that his letter box was also removed from the property, and his signboard of “Islamic Research & Guidance Centre” had also been removed by the defendants. Consequently, he filed the suit claiming the following reliefs:
“a. Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining him, his agents, attorneys, associates, employees, contractors, etc., from making the hindrance and threat for the entry of the plaintiff in the entire suit premises and particularly the occupation of the plaintiff as shown red and yellow color in the site plan. The defendant and his contractor/ agent may kindly also be restrained not to raise in the suit premises bearing no.:4085, Gali Nal Wali, Machli Walan, Urdu Bazar, Delhi,without permission and sanctioned plan from the competent authority.
b. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing to the defendant for rendition of account in respect of the Waqf Institution known as Masjid and Madarsa Riyazul Uloom and Library/books of Maulana Abdul Salam Bastavi and Kutub Khana Masidia, which is known now as Islamic Academy i.e. the book shop and a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and other office bearers of Masjid and Madarsa Riyazul Uloom may also be passed directing thereby to preserve and maintain the books/library of Maulana Abdul Salam Bastavi as shown in the site plan in yellow colour and as per the list of books mentioned in the published books known as “Islami Wasiyat”. The defendant may kindly be further directed by way of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff thereby directing to the defendant and the official of Masjid and Madarsa Royazul Uloom to reinstall the letter box and sign board of the plaintiff which was written as “Islamic Research and Guidance Centre” unde
