The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred in instances where a dispute falls within the domain of the Wakf Tribunal, as per the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 29.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.4345 of 2019 by the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and allow the revision.)

1. The plaintiffs whose plaint has been returned by the City Civil Court, Chennai, over which it is pending for its presentation before the Wakf Tribunal, has challenged the said order in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that:

* The properties described in ''A'' schedule were purchased by their predecessors in title of the plaintiffs, vide three sale deeds executed in 1907, 1925 and 1930. ''B'' schedule properties lies adjacent to ''A'' schedule properties and the same predecessors in title are the lessees of the properties under the respondent herein. Of them, the respondent have since taken possession of the B schedule property. (In the course of the hearing the counsel for the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners informed the court, that the suit for injunction as concerning the B-schedule property has since become infructuous.

* In the ''A'' schedule properties, there are residential buildings, wherein the plaintiffs reside. While so, on 15.11.2013 at around 1.00 p.m, some 100 persons claiming to be the men of the defendant, trespassed into the ''B'' schedule property and started demolishing the compound wall, which the plaintiffs had put up several years ago, without due process of law. The unwelcome visitors also held out threats to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs preferred a police complaint, that has little effect.

* It is in this circumstances, the plaintiffs have laid a suit in C.S.No.18 of 2014 before this Court, for bare injunction to protect their peaceful possession, which later came to be transferred to VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, owing to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction, where it was taken on record in O.S.No.4345/2019.

* Pending suit, the defendant/respondent took out an application in A.No.1812 of 2015 in C.S.No18/2014, which later was renumbered as I.A.No.1/2019 by VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. This application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of plaint. The core contention of the defendant is that the since the said property is a Wakf property belonging to it, as per the provisions contemplated under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, and the same can be determined only by the Wakf Tribunal. The trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 29.11.2019, accepted the contentions of the defendant and returned the plaint to the plaintiffs directing them to re-present the same before the Wakf Tribunal.

This order is now under challenge in this revision.

3.1 Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, took this Court through the opening paragraph of the affidavit of the respondent in I.A.No.1 of 2019, wherein he claims that ''A'' schedule property is part of a larger property of 144 grounds, and submitted:

* The statutory proforma of the respondent prepared in 1974 refers to a scheme decree passed in C.S.No.45/1892, and it is alleged that these properties are part of a scheme decree passed by this Court in C.S.No.45/1892, whereas the proforma was prepared in 1974 and a reference is made to a subsequent scheme decree in C.S.No.89/1910 dated 22.04.1913.

* It is in this backdrop, the Waqf Act, 1954 came into force, and this was later replaced by Waqf Act, 1995. In none of the proforma prepared under these enactments, this 144 grounds property was notified as ''wakf property''. It is in this circumstances, the amendment was brought to the Waqf Act in 2013, under which sub-section (1A) was introduced to Sec.4. It pro