The main legal point established is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit pertaining to a waqf property when the nature of the property as waqf property is disputed and not determined by any competent Court.

M.K. Mudgal, J.

1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11-05-2005 passed by the Court of District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 102- A/02 dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property in dispute is related to waqf. In this appeal the appellants are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents as the defendants.

2. Facts in brief of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit regarding agricultural land referred to in Para-2 of the plaint alleging that earlier Sitaram Marvadi who was the owner of the disputed land sold it to Hari Dutt s/o Ishwar Prasad vide registered sale deed dated 08-03-1956 on which basis the purchaser Hari Dutt became owner of the land. Hari Dutt executed a registered gift deed dated 26-12-1974 in favour of the plaintiffs No. 2 to 10. After the death of Hari Dutt, the plaintiffs became Bhoomi Swami of the land and they are in possession of the said land. The said land was unauthorizedly and illegally declared waqf Property vide State Gazette notification dated 25-08-89. No notice was given to the plaintiffs either by Survey Commissioner before converting the disputed land into waqf property or by the Revenue Authority before recording the said property as waqf Property. Hence, the suit for the aforesaid relief was filed before the trial Court.

3. The defendants denying the allegations of the plaint have submitted that the disputed Survey No. 715 is a waqf property which was declared by M.P. State in State Gazette dated 25-08-1989. The said land is entered in the Khasra as Kabristan and it is used for the same purpose. The defendants have further pleaded that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per Section 85 of the waqf Act 1995 hereinafter is referred to as the Act as the said land belongs to the waqf property.

4. Learned trial Court framed issues and Issue No. 4 was decided as preliminary issue holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, in this appeal only one question is being considered whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 85 of the waqf Act, 1995.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance upon Para-20 & 21 of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (D.) through L.Rs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza waqf 2011 (2) SCCD 717 (SC) and inviting the attention of this Court to the Section 6 & 7 of the Act as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Amil Hakimuddin and others vs. Abbas Hussain and others 2002 (2) M.P.L.J. Page 50 has submitted that the question in dispute in the instant case can be entertained by the Civil Court as when the disputed property was surveyed by the survey commissioner as per Section 4 and it was declared by the State Government as waqf property vide gazette notification dated 25-08-89 no information or opportunity of hearing was given by the authority to the appellants resultantly the plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the status of the said waqf property before the Civil Court. Learned counsel further emphasizing Para- 20 & 21 of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (D.) through L.Rs.(supra) has argued that in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit pertaining to a waqf property. The learned trial Court did not properly considered the aforesaid provisions and has committed error in dismissing the suit holding that the suit filed by the appellants is barred by Section 85 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants have submitted that the disputed property was declared as waqf property in the