IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. Chitambaresh, Sathish Ninan, JJ.
Pookoya – Petitioner
Versus
Lakshadweep State Wakf Board – Respondent
C.R.P. (Wakf) No.189 of 2015
Decided On : 29-10-2018
Statement of facts :
Rival claims for "Muthavalliship" and "sheikship" of a mosque situated at the Androth island in Lakshadweep is the subject matter of the litigation. The Wakf Board declared the second respondent to be the Muthavalli and the Sheik. The order was affirmed by the Wakf Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners before the Wakf Tribunal are in revision under S.83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.
Finding of the court :
The jurisdiction of the Wakf Board to adjudicate upon the issue involved in the lis being held in the negative, it is only appropriate that the findings entered into by the Board on the merits of the dispute and affirmed by the Tribunal be set aside-The parties are at liberty to have their rights adjudicated before the Wakf Tribunal in a properly constituted proceeding.
Result : The CRP (wakf) is allowed.
Rival claims for "Muthavalliship" and "sheikship" of a mosque situated at the Androth island in Lakshadweep is the subject matter of the litigation. The Wakf Board declared the second respondent to be the Muthavalli and the Sheik. The order was affirmed by the Wakf Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners before the Wakf Tribunal are in revision under S.83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.
2. "Ujra Palli" is a mosque situated in the Androth island. The mosque was established by one sheik Muhammed Khasim Valyulla, the predecessor in interest of the parties to the litigation. The parties belong to one of the ancient Tarawads of the appellant known as "Shaikinte veedu Taravad" hereinafter referred to as the "Tarawad". The said sheik Muhammed Khasim valyulla was a saintly member of that Tarawad and he established the mosque.
3. When the number of members of the Tarawad swelled up, it got divided into four thavazhies viz. (1) Shaikinteveedu thavazhi (2) Shaikinteveedu Padippura thavazhi (3) Shaikinteveedu Puthiyapura thavazhi and (4) Shaikinteveedu Cheriyapura thavazhi. The last two among the thavazhies viz. Puthiapura thavazhi and Cheriyapura thavazhi got extinct. It is not in dispute that the assets reverted to the other two thavazhies. The remaining two thavazhies got divided into sub thavazhies. The sub thavazhies under "sheikinte Veedu Thavazhi" are known as Nallakoya Thangal thavazhi, Thangakkoya Thangal thavazhi and Shaik Koya thavazhi. The last among them became extinct. The sub thavazhies under "sheikinte Veedu Padippura Thavazhi" are Muthukkoya thavazhi, Pookkoya thavazhi and Koyamakkoya thavazhi. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are members of the various thavazhis. A genealogical chart showing the Tarawad and its divisions is given hereunder for an easy assimilation of the facts:-
SHEIKINTE
SHEIKINTE VEEDU PADIPPURA TAVAZHI
SHEIKINTE VEEDU TAVAZHI
SHEIKINTE VEEDU PUTHIYAPURA TAVAZHI [EXTINCT]
SHEIKINTE VEEDU CHERIYAPURA TAVAZHI [EXTINCT]
MUTHUKOYA TAVAZHI
POOKOYA TAVAZHI
KOYAMAKOYA TAVAZHI
NALLAKOYA TAVAZHI
THANGAKOYA THANGAL TAVAZHI
SHEIKKOYA TAVAZHI (EXTINCT)
4. There was an earlier civil litigation between the members in the family as O.S. 5/1987 before the Munsiff's Court, Androth wherein the present parties or their predecessors were parties, one S.v. Pookoya Thangal who was the then senior most member of the second respondent Thavazhi was the first defendant therein. The issue involved in the said suit was relating to his right to perform "Ratheeb"-a prayer conducted in the mosque, and whether the right vests exclusively with his thavazhi. In the said suit the second respondent herein was originally the fourth plaintiff. On the application of the other plaintiffs, he was later transposed as the third defendant- It may not be necessary to go into the details of the suit except to refer the decreetal portion of the judgment wherein a declaration was made to the following effect:-
"A declaration that The right of management and income from suit property belongs to the members of different tavazhies of Shaikinte veedu tarwad of plaintiffs and defendants and the right to hold the office of Shaik Ujra mosque also belongs to qualifide(qualified) members of the tarwad' is granted"
5. The trial court found that the right of management and income from the Ujra Mosque and its properties belong to members of all the thavazhies of the common Tarawad - "sheikinte veedu", of the plaintiffs and the defendants, it was also held that the right to hold the office of Sheik of ujra Mosque belongs to the qualified members of the Tarawad. The first defendant therein namely, the said S.V. Pookoya Thangal preferred an appeal before the District Court, Kozhikode as AS 5/93. The appeal was transmitted to the Sub Court, Kozhikode and renumbered as AS 22/1994. The lear
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.