SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Manjaly Muslim Jama-Ath – Appellant 
Versus 
Rukhiya, D/o. Late Kunjumohammed – Respondent 
CRP(WAKF) No. 48 of 2023
Decided on : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.K.ANAND, SHRI.AMEER SALIM, SHRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL, SMT.ALEENA C. BABU, SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
For the Respondent: SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SHRI.K.RAJEEV, SHRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF BOARD, SRI.SABU GEORGE, SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER, SMT.B.ANUSREE, SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.), SRI.C.K.RAPHEEQUE, SRI.K.B.NIDHINKUMAR

Proceedings involving waqf properties are invalid if the Waqf Board is not notified, and all statutory requirements must be addressed by the Tribunal.

Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 36A and 57 - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 - Section 72B - Dismissal of suit seeking a declaration of nullity of a purchase certificate under Land Reforms Act without issuing notice to the Waqf Board - Tribunal's judgment deemed inadequate for not addressing all issues framed and failing to consider compliance with statutory provisions regarding waqf properties. (Paras 3, 12, 16)

(B) Adjudication of Waqf property disputes - Importance of issuing notice to the Waqf Board - Non-compliance leads to invalidation of proceedings involving waqf properties - Appellate Tribunal must address all framed issues. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs challenged a purchase certificate obtained by Kunjumuhammed Moulavi under the assumption that the property was a waqf, hence not subject to alienation without prior Waqf Board approval. The issue arose when the purchase certificate was revealed to the plaintiffs in 2007, leading them to seek its annulment due to alleged fraud in the proceedings. (Para 5)

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the purchase certificate while recognizing the property as waqf. The court found procedural deficiencies regarding the issuance of notices and the obligation of the Tribunal to address all issues comprehensively. (Paras 11, 18)

Issues: The primary issues included maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction, non-joinder of necessary parties, and issues pertaining to fraud and title over the waqf property. (Paras 10, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that the Tribunal neglected its obligation to adjudicate all relevant issues and did not adequately address the statutory requirements for waqf property transactions, thereby invalidating the proceedings. (Paras 16, 17)

Result: Judgment set aside; matter remitted back to the Tribunal for further consideration.

Table of Content
1. challenge to purchase certificate's validity. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background of land tenure and ownership disputes. (Para 3 , 4)
3. allegations of fraud in land dealings. (Para 5 , 6)
4. defendants' claims of valid possession challenged. (Para 7)
5. court noted procedural failings in the tribunal's judgment. (Para 8 , 11 , 13)
6. issues framed regarding property rights and affirmations. (Para 9)
7. representation of the imam's authority contested. (Para 12 , 14)
8. discussion on compliance with waqf act provisions. (Para 15 , 16)
9. remand for additional adjudication and evidence. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

The present C.R.P. (Wakf) is directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24.08.2023 in W.O.S. No.430 of 2019, whereby the suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff in W.O.S. No.31 of 2015, renumbered as W.O.S. No.430 of 2019, seeking a declaration that Purchase Certificate No.456 of 1976 dated 10.05.1976 issued by the Land Tribunal, Paravoor in S.M. Proceedings No.1428/75 is null and void, and further praying for a direction to defendants 1 to 13 and 15 to 18, their assignees and successors-in-interest, to hand over possession of the plaint schedule properties, as well as for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees and successors-in-interest from alienating or encumbering the said property, has been dismissed.

2. The suit aforementioned was based on a premise that the first plaintiff is a Waqf registered with the Kerala State Waqf Board with Registration No.3172 /RA and the 2nd plaintiff is its President. The Waqf has a property measuring 4 Acres and 23 cents of landed property in Sy.No.391/14 vide Patta No.1207 which is as per the pleadings included in the waqf register maintained by the Waqf Board. One Sri. Kunjumuhammed Moulavi was the Imam and Khatheeb of the 1st plaintiff Jama-ath for a pretty long time. The Jama-ath had constructed a house in a 3 cents of land in the mosque compound for providing accommodation to the Khatheeb and family in which late Kunjumuhammed Moulavi and his family, earlier his father Ahamad moulavi and his family was permitted to reside and did not have any title or interest over the property as his status was only a Imam neither he was a Kudikidappukaran or cultivating tenant as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

3. In the year 2007, the office bearers of the 1st plaintiff Jama-ath came to know that, out of the total extent of 4 Acres 23 cents of land, an extent of about 1 Acre comprised in Sy. No. 391/14 of Karumalloor Village (formerly Ayiroor Village) in Paravoor Taluk had been dealt with by late Kunjumuhammed Moulavi, by virtue of a purchase certificate by initiating proceedings under Section 72MM (7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and along with the then President and he said land was transferred in his name. Upon his death, devolved upon his legal heirs, who thereafter effected further transfers, ultimately resulting in respondent Nos. 10 to 13, 15 and 16 acquiring rights over the said property from the legal heirs of Kunjumuhammed Moulavi. In other words, the Kunjumuhammed Moulavi in those 72MM proceedings managed to obtain the purchase certificate in his name in the year 1976 in OA No.1428 of 1975 without issuing notice to the Waqf Board with whom the waqf was already registered since 1961. However the factum of the purchase certificate was not known at the relevant point of time ie., in the year 2007, gave a cause of action to the then President to submit OP No.100/2007 for taking a necessary action for recovery of the property. In those proceedings, the factum of the purchase certificate in 1976 in respect of 89 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.391/14 was revealed. Accordingly, a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Alappuzha bearing No.25 of 2008 under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was preferred to set aside the certificate of purchase No.456/1976 da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top