Suit regarding Wakf property can only be decided by Wakf Tribunal.

1. The present Revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam dated 24.3.2005 in I.A. No. 206 of 2005 in I.A. No. 57 of 2005 in O.S. No. 28 of 2005.

2. The petitioner herein filed the Suit against the respondent herein and others in O.S. No. 28 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the said Suit from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondent, who is the first defendant in the said Suit, has filed an Application to decide the issue of jurisdiction at the first instance. In the said Application, it has been stated that the suit property is a wakf property and hence, the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, where the Suit has been filed, has no jurisdiction to try the same. The petitioner, who was the respondent in the said Application, resisted the same stating that the suit property is not a wakf property and hence, the Suit filed before the said Court cannot be termed as not maintainable. The learned Trial Judge, after discussing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the said Application and returned the plaint to be presented before the proper Court. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that:

(a) The Suit is for bare injunction and not for declaration of title and hence, the Suit before the District Munsif, Thirumangalam is perfectly valid.

(b) Since the petitioner disputes the claim of the respondent that the suit property is a wakf property, the same can be decided only at the time of the final trial and hence, it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.

(c) When the other defendants have not been served, the preliminary issue raised by the respondent alone cannot be taken note of.

(d) Since the pleadings itself is not completed in view of the fact that the respondent and other defendants did not file any written statement, deciding the maintainability of the Suit based on one of the defendants claim by way of a Petition under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. is erroneous.

(e) The learned District Munsif ought to have seen that invoking Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. will arise only after framing of issues, if the Court comes to the conclusion that it has to decide a question of law before deciding the other issues of facts, it could decide the same. Hence, in the present case on hand, since no issues have been framed, the Application under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. is erroneous.

4. Per contra, Mr. T.V. Sivakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has vehemently contended that:

(a) The present Suit is not at all maintainable in view of the fact that the suit property is a wakf property and the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Wakf Tribunal and not the present Court where the Suit has been filed.

(b) Section 85 of the Wakf Act clearly says that no Suit lie in any Civil Court relating to any wakf property.

(c) As per Section 6 of the Wakf Act, if any question arises whether a particular property is a wakf property or not, any person interested therein may institute a Suit in a Wakf Tribunal.

5. I have carefully gone through the contentions raised by the counsel on both sides.

6. The Suit property itself has been mentioned in the plaint as Shah Hussain Perrsi Oliyullah Durga. Moreover, in the counter to the application filed by the respondent herein, it has been clearly stated by the petitioner herein that in respect of the subject matter of the suit property, there is already proceedings before the Principal Sub-Court (Wakf Tribunal), Madurai.

7. The respondent herein filed an affidavit in support of the Application wherein it has been clearly stated that the Suit property has been declared as wakf property in the Government Gazette notification dated 27.5.1959. Further, in