ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. This civil revision petition filed under the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 arises out of the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, dated 24.12.2011 in O.S.No.11/2011. The revision petitioners, namely, Puthan Peedika Palli Paripalana Committee, a Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its Secretary are the plaintiffs in the said suit filed before the Waqf Tribunal seeking a declaration that the 2nd plaintiff committee is the mutawalli of the plaint schedule properties covered by Ext.B1 waqf deed bearing No.192/1958 dated 3.2.1958 and the institutions situated therein; and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant (1st respondent herein) from interfering with the administration of the waqf.

2. The plaintiffs' case in brief is as follows; The plaint schedule properties were dedicated by one Biriyankutty Umma, daughter of Chakkiri Moideen Kutty, as per Ext.B1 waqf deed. The waqif appointed one Assamukutty Marakkar (son-in-law of her son) as the mutawalli. Velunthamannil Parambil Palli is situated in plaint schedule item No.1. Plaint schedule item No.2 is a garden land, and the income therefrom was used for the maintenance of the mosque. Originally there was only a 'serambi' (porch) and subsequently a madrassa by name 'Manuviral Islam Madrassa' was also started. Assamutty Marakkar was unable to maintain and manage the affairs of the niskara palli and madrassa, as there was no sufficient income from the waqf properties. Therefore, he handed over mutawalli-ship in favour of the beneficiaries of the waqf and Sunni Muslims in the locality.

2.1. According to the plaintiffs, a meeting of the beneficiaries of the waqf and Sunni Muslims in the locality was convened on 21.2.1992 at the instance of the 1st defendant, who is the son of Assamutty Marakkar. In the said meeting a decision was taken and a committee was elected for the administration and management of the waqf and its properties. The said committee demolished the niskara palli and constructed a mosque spending more than Rs.4,00,000/- with public participation. The said committee was in the management of mosque, utilising the income from the plaint schedule properties and also donations and subscriptions from public. Subsequently, as decided by the general body, the said committee was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act.

2.2. The plaintiffs contended that, much before the death of Assamutty Marakkar, who died on 19.9.1998, he had relinquished mutawalli-ship in favour of Sunni Muslims in the locality and the 1st defendant, who had actively participated in the meeting of the committee, put his signature and paid subscriptions to the 2nd plaintiff committee as a member of its general body. The madrassa, which is functioning in plaint schedule item No.1, is affiliated to Samastha Kerala Islam Matha Vidyabyasa Board, and conducting classes from Standard I to VII. An English medium School is also functioning there. The 2nd plaintiff committee is managing and administering the plaint schedule property and the institutions as a mutawalli.

2.3. The plaintiffs contended further that, as per the recitals of Ext.B1 waqf deed, no hereditary mutawalli as such has been nominated by the waqif, namely, Biriyankutty Umma. After the death of Assamutty Marakkar, one A.P. Sooppikutty has to become the mutawalli as per the stipulations in the waqf deed and there is no provision in the said deed regarding mutawalli-ship after the death of the eldest son of Assamutty Marakkar. Suppressing the above facts, the 1st defendant filed O.S.No.61/2003 before the Waqf Tribunal seeking a declaration that he is the mutawalli of the waqf, who is in management of the waqf properties, and for consequential injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 31.12.2005 and the matter was taken up in revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.214/2006. In the meanwhile certain other beneficia