IMPORTANT POINT
Suit for possession was not maintainable before the Tribunal and ought to have been agitated before the Civil Court.

ORDER :

T. R. Ravi, J.

1. Heard Sri. K.M. Firoz appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri. Nirmal S., appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. T. K. Saidalikutty, appearing for the 3rd respondent.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 41 of 2015 before the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, with the following prayers;

(i) Pass a decree declaring that the 1st defendant is not entitled to perform any act under the guise of the Manager and to interfere in the administration of the Kannavam Charitable Trust and the Meera Home for Girls in any manner;

(ii) Pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering in any manner in the administration of the Kannavam charitable Trust and the Meera Home for Girls and from posing herself as the Manager of the plaintiff Trust;

(iii) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to return all the records of the Trust and of the Meera Home for Girls to the second plaintiff and to grant such other reliefs which the plaintiffs may pray for from time to time and the Tribunal may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice.

(iv) Order the 1st defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiffs.

The Tribunal partly decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim that was preferred by the petitioner herein.

3. The 1st respondent is a Public Charitable Trust and has registered itself as a waqf before the Waqf Board. The dispute which has been raised does not relate to any waqf property. Going by the dictum laid down in Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike and another reported in 2019 (4) SCC 698, the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal is limited to those aspects which are required to be decided by the Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act. A dispute regarding the right of the petitioner to be a Manager of an institution which is registered as a Waqf does not come under any of the provisions contained in the Waqf Act, which provide jurisdiction to the Tribunal.

4. The counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on the decisions in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P. V. Ibrahim Haji and others reported in 2014 (16) SCC 65, Mechery Vijayakumar v. Kinassery Yatheem Khana and others reported in 2020 (2) KLT 46 and Darul Huda Masjid Mahallu Committee and others v. Kokkur Juma Masjid Committee and others (CRP No.262 of 2007) to contend that a suit for injunction relating to the management of the waqf property is maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal. Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee (supra) was considered elaborately by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Sham Singh Harike (supra) and in paragraphs 41 to 43 of the judgment, it has been held as follows:

41. In Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P. V. Ibrahim Haji, 2014 (16) SCC 65, this Court again had occasion to consider S.83 and S.84 of the Wakf Act. The question which arose in the above case is whether the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration, management and peaceful enjoyment of the mosque and madarsa run by it and all the assets attached to the mosque. The appellant had filed suit for injunction before the Court of Munsif. It was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. The suit was decreed. Civil Revision was filed in the High Court challenging the decree of the Wakf Tribunal. The High Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal held that suit for injunction is not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram. The following was noticed in paragraph 3 of the judgment:

"3. The respondents herein filed a civil revision petition as CRP No. 1362 of 2004 under S.83(9) of the Wakf Act before the Kerala High Court. The High Court vide its judgment dated 10/11/2010 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal holding that a suit for injunction is not maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal pla