The Wakf Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in disputes concerning internal management of societies; only members can challenge by-law amendments.

ORDER :

1. The defendants 1 to 3 in WOS No.114 of 2019 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode are the revision petitioners.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the case are as follows:-

Respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs approached the Wakf Tribunal seeking a declaration that the amendments brought to the bye-law of the 1^st defendant-Society is null and void and not binding on the members of the 1^st defendant – Society and for consequential reliefs. The 1^st defendant is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 herein approached the Wakf Tribunal on the pretext that the 1^st defendant – Society, which is managing the Waqf, has no written bye-law. During 2015-16, the 2nd plaintiff filed a rival list of office bearers before the District Registrar claiming that they are the office bearers of the Society and the said list was rejected by the District Registrar. Though the order of the District Registrar was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.18204 of 2015, the same was dismissed by judgment dated 16.02.2016. It is further alleged that certain amendments to the registered bye- law were made during the year 2016, which led to the filing of the suit.

3. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the amendments purportedly made in the year 2016 infringe the basic character of the Wakf. The religious supremacy of Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama was accepted in the original bye-law, but, by the amendment, the same was changed to Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama registered No.S1/1934-35 DRO Kozhikode. It was also made clear that if the supremacy of the aforesaid religious head is not accepted, such members would stand to lose the membership of the society, therefore, the plaintiffs approached the Wakf Tribunal challenging the amendments brought to the bye-law of the 1^st defendant – Society on 01.04.2016.

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A16 were produced. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B16 were produced. PW1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs and DW1 on the side of the defendants. The Wakf Tribunal by the judgment dated 09.06.2023, decreed the suit in part, by granting the 1^st relief in the suit, i.e. holding the amendments to the bye-law as specified in Ext.A4 (a) as null and void and not binding to the plaintiffs. Waqf Board was given liberty to conduct election to the Managing Committee, exercising its supervisory power. Other incidental reliefs sought in the suit were declined. Aggrieved by the judgment of the tribunal in decreeing the suit and granting the 1^st relief sought for in the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 have approached this Court with the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri.R.Ramdas – the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri.P.A.Abdul Jabbar – the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and Sri.Jamsheed Hafeez – the learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board.

6. Sri.R.Ramdas – the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submitted that insofar as the Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is concerned, the Wakf Tribunal has no authority to declare the amendment caused to the bye-law as null and void. The amendments were made to the bye-law complying with the provision of Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act , 1860 and the amendments were duly approved by the Registrar of the Societies. The amendments to the bye-laws do not