Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
PATTASSERI VAKKANDATHIL SHAIKALI – Appellant
Versus
CHERAMANGALAM ANSARUL MUSLIMEEN SANGHAM MAHALLU JUMA MASJID – Respondent
CRP(WAKF) 27/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Ramadas
For the Respondents: S. Jamsheed Hafiz, SC, Waqf, S. K. Anand K, S. Ameer Salim(K/1024/2020)
The Waqf Board has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes regarding Muthawally management.
Headnote:The case relates to the jurisdiction over management and Muthawally issues under the Waqf Act. The Court referred to the judgment in S.V.Cheriyakoya Thangal Vs. S.V.P.Pookoya which states that such disputes fall under the Waqf Board's authority. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and parties must appear before the Waqf Board for resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal’s decision is overturned, parties to approach waqf board for resolution. (Para 2) |
The dispute essentially involved in this case is with regard to the management and the Muthawally. The suit was filed before the Tribunal. We have been confronted with the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.V.Cheriyakoya Thangal Vs. S.V.P.Pookoya and Others in Civil Appeal No.4629 of 2024, where it has been held that the Tribunal would not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to the mutawalliship and the Waqf Board have the power to do the same.
2. In view of the judgment cited supra, the controversy with regard to the Muthawally has to be decided by the Waqf Board. Without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits on the oral and documentary evidence or the assertions in the suit, we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and relegate the parties to appear before the Waqf Board. The Waqf Board is directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law.
