Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 3199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam, Majid & Durga Gudiyattam, Represented by its duly appointed Muthavalli S.A.Rahim - Appellant
Versus
Haji Syed Irfan Hussain Sahib (Died) & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. (NPD). No. 964 of 2016
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Waqf Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227
WAKF ACT : S.4, S.4(1), S.5, S.5(2), S.6, S.6(1), S.83(9), S.89, S.90(1)
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal - Tribunal's findings must align with established Wakf properties and procedures - Misdescription of parties not fatal if parties understood the litigation context. (Paras 75, 138)
(C) Rights of Muthavalli - Muthavalli can file suit for Wakf property; Wakf Board sanction required for property alienation. (Paras 64, 132)
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Wakf Board Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in O.S.No.220 of 2008 and consequently allow the aforesaid O.S.No.220 of 2008.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the judgment and decree of the Wakf Board Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge at Vellore in O.S. No.220 of 2008 dated 17.02.2016.
S.No.
Sub Headings
Paragraph Nos.
1.
Plaint
4 to 9
2.
Written Statement filed by the eighth
Defendant
10 to 11
3.
Written statement filed by the 9th
Defendant
12
4.
Gist of the written statement filed by the
20th defendant
13
5.
Judgment of the Trial Court
14 to 17
6.
Submissions
21 to 28
7.
Scope of Revision under Section 83(9) of
the Waqf Act, 1995
29 to 33
8.
Scheme of Waqf Act
34 to 49
9.
Whether notice is necessary under Section
89 of the Waqf Act, 1995
50 to 56
10.
Whether the documents dated 16.10.1946
and 07.07.1931 have a bearing on the title
of the suit property
57 to 63
11.
Whether a suit can only be filed by the
Wakf Board
64 to 74
12.
Whether the plaintiff Ahale Sunnathwal
Jamath Jogi Madam Masjid and Durga
Gudiyattam is different from Jogi Madam
Masjid and Durga
75 to 80
13.
Lack of pleadings
81 to 90
14.
Previous litigations with respect to the
suit schedule property
91
15.
Filing of O.S.No.1355 of 1969 and
O.S.No.362 of 1970
92 to 98
16.
Is misdescription of parties fatal?
99 to 104
17.
Source of title of the eighth defendant
105 to 123
18.
Oral Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and its
Effect
124 to 127
19.
Does the non-payment of contribution to
the Wakf Board efface the Wakf and its
properties?
128 to 131
20.
Whether the sale of the suit property is
Valid
132
21.
Whether the suit is barred by time
133 to 137
21.
Is Order 9 Rule 9 CPC a bar to the
present suit?
138 to 143
22.
Conclusion
144 to 146
2. O.S.No.220 of 2008 was filed by one Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam Masjid and Durga (hereinafter referred to as 'Jogi Madam Masjid) for the following reliefs:
“a) Declare that the suit property is the Wakf property of the Plaintiff's Mosque and Durga under the control and management of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the 8thDefendant, his men, agents, servants and unlawful followers from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property,
b) Declare that the registered sale deed dt. 09.06.2008, Doc.No.4497/2008, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gudiyattam, executed by the Defendants 1 to 6 through their Power Agent 7th Defendant in favour of the 8thDefendant is illegal, null and void and ab-initio.
c) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the 11thDefendant from effecting name transfer in the revenue records in respect of the suit property.
d) Grant an order of permanent injunction, restraining the 12thDefendant from effecting name transfer in the municipal records in respect of the suit property.
e) Grant an order of permanent injunction against the 13thand 14thDefendants restraining them from in any manner providing illegal protection to the 8thDefendant to take illegal and forcible possession of the suit property from the Plaintiff's Mosque and Durga.
f) Grant an order of permanent injunction against 8thDefendant, his men, agents and servants restraining them from alienating the suit property to any third parties and
g) award the cost of the suit to the Plaintiff.”
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their ranks in the suit.
Plaint:
4. The claim of the plaintiff was that the suit property is a Wakf property, which had been endowed in favour of the plaintiff Mosque and Durga. The purpose of the grant was for construction of a Makkan, for keeping the lights in the Mosque and Durga and for offering prayers in the Mosque and rendering connected services. According to the plaintiff, the property has be
