Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving Wakf properties as per the WAKF ACT, sections 83 and 85, which mandate that such matters be determined by the Wakf Tribunal.

ORDER :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.8020 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the petitioner herein has filed a petition before the trial Court to reject the plaint on the ground that it is barred by law.

2. The averments of the petitioner in the petition filed before the trial Court is that he is the third defendant in the main suit and the first respondent has filed a suit before the trial Court for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner / third defendant is the Wakf Committee and the property belongs to Wakf Board and thereby the suit is not maintainable and Wakf Tribunal alone have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the first respondent / petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court for rejection of plaint since the suit is barred by law. The trial Court failed to consider that the suit is barred by law and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the Wakf Tribunal only have the jurisdiction to try the case.

3. According to the respondents, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he purchased the property from the Slum Clearance Board and thereby, he filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Therefore, the Civil Court only has the jurisdiction to declare the right of the first respondent / plaintiff. While so the petitioner / third defendant filed an application before the trial court to reject the plaint by stating that the property belongs to Wakf Board and thereby the Wakf's Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction to entertain the case. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application by holding that it cannot be decided at that stage and it needs elaborate trial. Therefore the order passed by the trial Court is in order and the present petition should be dismissed.

4. Before the trial Court no oral or documentary evidence have been adduced by either side. The trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the application filed to reject the plaint.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the property originally belonged to the petitioner / third defendant Wakf and the first respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration by impleading the Wakf board as one of the party to the proceedings and sought for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as against the Wakf Board. Therefore, the Wakf Board alone has the jurisdiction to try the suit and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The first respondent / plaintiff himself admitted in the pleadings that he was a tenant under the petitioner and thereby, he admitted the title of the property and thereafter, he purchased the property from the Slum Clearance Board. Once the first respondent / plaintiff admitted that his father was a tenant, he cannot deny the title of the property. Even as per the pleadings in the plaint, the property belongs to the Wakf Board and therefore the Wakf Board alone have the jurisdiction to decide the title of the property. But the trial Court failed to consider the same and hence the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. To support his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments in :

i) Rajasthan Wakf Board Vs. Devki Nandan Pathak & others,2017 AIR (SC) 2155

ii) Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari & Ors.,2022 (4)SCC 414

iii) Board of Wakf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr., 2010 (7) Supreme 1059

iv) I. Salam Khan Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Boar