The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court extends to all matters except the specific issues enumerated under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, and the question of jurisdiction is one that goes to the root of the matter and can be raised and decided by the Tribunal itself.

The civil revision petitioner, the defendant in the suit, is a tenant of the Waqf, the plaintiff/respondent in CRP.

2. A suit was filed by the Waqf in W.O.P.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal-cum-Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur. The prayer in the suit was for a decree in favour of the plaintiff / respondent waqf directing the defendant / revision petitioner to vacate and handover possession of the suit premises within a time frame or directing delivery through process of Court. The suit was contested by the petitioner herein and a judgment and decree dated 20.07.2006 passed by the Waqf Tribunal in favour of the Waqf, as against which the present CRP has been filed.

3. Though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 20.07.2006, the sole ground canvassed before me is that the Tribunal did not have requisite jurisdiction to have entertained the matter as it was not maintainable before it. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (Dead), through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf [2010 (8) SCC 726].

4. Heard Mr. P. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Chandrasekar, for M/s. Sarvabhuman Associates, for the respondent.

5. At the outset, Mr. Anand Chandrasekar objects to the argument of maintainability arguing that such ground was never raised at the first instance and hence should not be permitted to be raised now. Mr. Thiagarajan for his part, submits that the question of maintainability or otherwise of a matter before an authority and the vesting of jurisdiction in that authority to entertain the case is one that goes to the root of the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites the judgment of the Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Narain (dead) by Lrs., and another [1996 (4) SCC 178] and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal [2014 (3) CTC 473] in support of his submission.

7. In the case of Urban Improvement Trust (supra), a Division Bench of the Supreme Court was concerned with the question of whether an objection on the maintainability of a matter could be raised at the stage of execution and in paragraph 15 and 16 the Bench holds thus :

'...15. The question then is : whether the objections can be raised in execution ? This controversy is no longer res integra. In Sushil Kumar Mehta V. Gobind Ram Bohra a three - Judge Bench of this Court was to consider whether the nullity of a decree can be raised in execution. Under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 o f 1973) the building was governed by the provisions of the said Act. The civil court granted decree of eviction. When objection was raised in execution the executing court rejected the same. On appeal, this court had held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on any other ground which goes to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction, is a nullity. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. it s invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party. If the court has jurisdiction but there is any defect in its exercise of jurisdiction it does not go to the root of its authority. Such a defect like territorial jurisdiction could be waived by the party. If the court has jurisdiction but there is any defect in its exercise of jurisdiction it does not go to the root of its authority. Such a defect like territorial jurisdiction could be waived by the party which could be corrected only by way of an appeal or revision. In that case it was held that since the decree was a nullity the va