Hon'ble SIKRI, J.—Leave granted.

2. The question that needs determination in the present appeal is as to whether Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent herein or the subject matter of the suit lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’), having regard to the provisions of Section 85 of the Act. Though the suit was filed by the Respondent in the Civil Court, it is on the application of the Respondent itself stating that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 85 of the Act, the Civil Court returned the plaint accepting the said contention of the Respondent. The Petitioners herein, who were the Defendants in the suit, challenged the order of the Civil Court by filing Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur. The said Revision Petition is also dismissed by the impugned orders. It is how the present proceedings arise, questioning the validity of the orders of the High Court.

3. The facts around which the controversy is involved do not require big canvass and are re-capitulated herein below:

The property in dispute which is the subject matter of litigation, is situated in the town of Nagaur in the State of Rajasthan and is in the possession of the petitioners herein.

Respondent No. 1 is the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf and Respondent No. 2 is the Muslim Board Committee. Both the Respondents claimed that the subject property is the Wakf Property. These Respondents, filed the Civil Suit in the year 1980 for possession of the said property as well as for rendition of accounts against the petitioners herein claiming it to be a wakf property. On coming to know, after filing of the suit, that one trustee Mr. Naimuddin S/o Abdul Bari had sold the property to the petitioners vide sale deed dated 28.2.1983, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 amended the plaint by adding the relief of declaration to the effect that the said sale deed dated 28.2.1983 was invalid.

4. The Petitioners filed the written statement and contested the suit raising number of defences. The Trial Court, i.e. the Additional District Judge, framed the following issues on 4.8.1984:

(i) Whether Haveli and the land of compound including the land underneath the measurements of which have been given in paragraph-3 of the plain, are Wakf Property?

(ii) Whether the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 3 regarding the Haveli and the land of the compound dated 22.06.1960 for Rs. 400/- is invalid because the property is Wakf Property?

(iii) Whether the sale deeds in favour of Defendants No. 4 and 5 are invalid with respect to Haveli and the land of the compound because the property is Wakf Property?

(iv) Whether the sale deed executed by defendant Naimuddin in favour of defendant No. 5 on 28.2.1983 is invalid.

(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to file the present suit?

(vi) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(vii) Whether Court Fee insufficient?

(viii) Relief.

5. The suit, thereafter, went on trial. All the parties led their evidence, though it took considerable time. When the matter was ready for final hearing, on 2.12.2000, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed the application u/Sec.85 of the Act raising the contention that the suit in question could not be tried by the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Prayer was made that the plaint filed by them may be returned to be presented before the Tribu-nal constituted under the Act, which alone had the jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. Their application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide orders dated 4.1.2001 holding that the question whether the property in question was Wakf Property or not, could be decided only by the Tribunal and Section 85 of the Act specifically barred the jurisdiction of Civil Court. In the Revisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document