ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The plaintiff in a suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam challenges the dismissal of the suit holding that it is not maintainable.

2. The reasons stated by the Tribunal for the said decision is that the matter, at best, would have to go only to the Wakf Board and Wakf Tribunal could only sit in appeal on the decision of the Wakf Board. The different provisions empowering the Wakf Board is dealt with by the Tribunal in the impugned order and the suit has been found to be not maintainable on the ground that the Wakf Board has got the power to grant the reliefs sought for.

3. Following is relief No.A sought for by the plaintiff in the plaint.

"To declare that plaintiff was the legally elected president for the period 2006-2008 of the defendant and that the continuance of the then existing committee and further inclusion of member to the Managing Committee and the decisions allegedly taken to bring out amendments to the existing constitutions are arbitrary, illegal and against the will of the members and to further declare that all the dealings made by persons claiming to be office bearers of the defendant are without sanction and will not bind the defendant."

4. Apart from the above, direction is also sought for, to conduct election as per the Constitution.

5. The aforequoted relief No.A in the plaint seeks a declaration that the plaintiff was the legally elected President for the period 2006-2008. Declaration sought is of "having been elected as the President of a Wakf." Also sought for in relief No.A is that it be declared that the decisions allegedly taken to bring out amendments to the existing Constitution are arbitrary, illegal and against the will of the members. That relief is founded on the plea that after excluding the plaintiff, there were unauthorised inclusions of members to the Managing Committee. The plaintiff also sought for a declaration that all the dealings made by persons claiming to be office bearers of the defendant are without sanction and will not bind the defendant Wakf.

6. With the aforesaid, by now, it is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Wakf v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010 (4) KLT 765 (SC)) that the scope of section 83 is very wide in connotation and any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises, relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. Their Lordships also stated specifically that it is not necessary for a party to first invoke the authority of the Wakf Board, get a decision, and then to move the Tribunal as if it is an appellate remedy. These principles are well stated in paragraphs 14 to 16 of the aforesaid judgment which are extracted hereunder:

"14.Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words "any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property" are in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word 'Wakf has been defined in S.3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Wakf property as defined in S.3(r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal.

16. We may further clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he/she is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Ss.83(1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt S.83 (2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Ss.83(1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdictio