IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.T. Ravikumar, Anu Sivaraman, JJ.
Kerala State Wakf Board, Represented By Its Chief Executive Officer – Appellant
Versus
Ansari Charitable Trust, Porumpi Lane – Respondent
C.R.P.(Wakf) No.470 of 2009
Decided On : 16-11-2017
Issue arised:
Whether Ansari Charitable Trust is a Waqf as defined under Section 3® of the Waqf Act or a trust created under the Indian Trust Act
Facts of the case
The Trust was formed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining hospital, library, reading room and Arabic college and to promote adult education, to foster and educate orphans by establishing orphanages, without discrimination of caste or creed. It was founded by one Smt.Valiyakath Jameela Abdul Majeed as per trust deed dated 8.9.1979. On 14.6.1999 the revision petitioner, the Waqf Board, issued a letter to the Trust requiring it to register under the Waqf Act. Furthermore, it was informed thereunder that in case of failure to register it as Waqf, voluntarily, suo motu proceedings for registering it as Waqf would be taken. The objects of the Trust are those recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable
Finding of the Court
No permanent dedication of the movable or immovable properties to the God Almighty, even the satisfaction of the purpose for which it was created is pious, religious or charitable as recognised by Muslim Law and that the deed was executed by a person professing Islam would not bring it within the definition of Waqf, for the purpose of Waqf Act – The Trust in question created under the deed dated 8.9.1979 is not a Waqf and it is only a Trust under the Indian Trust Act.
Result : Revision petition is dismissed.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. The issue involved in this case is whether Ansari Charitable Trust (for short 'the Trust') is a Waqf as defined under Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act or a trust created under the Indian Trust Act. A succinct narration of the facts is required for proper disposal of this revision petition.
2. This revision petition is filed by the Waqf Board against the order dated 12.2.2009 in W.O.A.No.7 of 2006 passed by the Waqf Tribunal, Ernakulam. It is the common case that the Trust was formed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining hospital, library, reading room and Arabic college and to promote adult education, to foster and educate orphans by establishing orphanages, without discrimination of caste or creed. It was founded by one Smt.Valiyakath Jameela Abdul Majeed as per trust deed dated 8.9.1979. On 14.6.1999 the revision petitioner, the Waqf Board, issued a letter to the Trust requiring it to register under the Waqf Act. Furthermore, it was informed thereunder that in case of failure to register it as Waqf, voluntarily, suo motu proceedings for registering it as Waqf would be taken. On its receipt, the respondent sent reply dated 06.9.1999, accompanied by an affidavit highlighting and clarifying the intention behind the formation of the Trust and also sought for a re-hearing in the matter. Trust deed and other documents were produced before the Waqf Board. Thereupon, as per proceedings dated A2-1795/97 dated 22.11.1999, the Waqf Board declared that the Trust is a Waqf and directed the trustees to register it as a Waqf under the Waqf Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.2083/2000. This Court disposed of the said writ petition as per judgment dated 6.3.2006 holding that if the petitioner has any dispute as to whether the Trust is a Waqf or not, the remedy open to the petitioner therein/the respondent herein, is to get the same adjudicated by the Waqf Tribunal by moving it appropriately. In that view of the matter, liberty was granted to the petitioner therein/ the respondent herein to approach the Waqf Tribunal within the time stipulated thereunder. Consequently, the respondent herein filed WOA No.7/2006 which culminated in the impugned order. As per the impugned order, the Tribunal found that the proceedings dated 22.11.1999 of the Waqf Board is not sustainable and consequently, set it aside. It is challenging the said order in WOA No.7/2006 passed by the Waqf Tribunal, Ernakulam setting aside the proceedings of the Waqf Board dated 22.11.1999, the captioned revision petition has been filed.
3. We have heard the learned standing counsel for the Waqf Board, the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. We have already noted that the Trust in question was created as per deed dated 8.9.1979. The purpose and intention for its creation, going by the recital in the said deed have been extracted in the memorandum of revision petition as hereunder:-
“(a) To establish and maintain, Hospital, Library and Reading room and Arabic College and to facilitate Adult education.
(b) To help, assist or otherwise support and accelerate, facilitate and propagate the teaching of Islam among the members of the Muslim Community in particular and among others at large.
(c) To facilitate the Islamic cultural and educational values by providing scholarships, prizes, books, fees and other educational facilities to the deserving pupils of the Muslim community.
(d) To encourage religious instructions and religious activities in promoting the cause of Islam.
(e) To foster and educate orphans and establish and maintain their orphanages without any discrimination of caste or creed.
(f) To expend for all causes of Islam as and when decided by the Board of Trustees.
(g) To render all services required for the uplift and prosperity of all sections of people without any discrimination of caste or creed.”
5. Essentially, the contention of the rev
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.