The Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to Waqf properties, and the bar under Section 87 of the Waqf Act does not apply to it.

ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.140 of 2021 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, have filed this revision petition, invoking the provisions under Section 83 (9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, the Act), challenging an order dated 25.5.2002 of that Tribunal in I.A.No.67 of 2002 in O.S.No.140 of 2001. That interlocutory application was filed by defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7, seeking an order to dismiss the suit as not maintainable, in view of the provisions under Section 87 of the Act. That suit was filed by the appellants for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and the mosque situated therein, except for offering the prayers, and not to cause any obstruction for the management of the properties by the plaintiffs.

2. The defendants raised a contention that, the plaintiffs are not competent to file such a suit and get the relief. The plaintiffs have no manner of right over the plaint schedule properties and the mosque. In I.A.No.67 of 2002, defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7 contended that the Waqf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, as per the decision of the Madras High Court. They also contended that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants. Further, according to them, the properties are not registered as wakf before the Waqf Board. As per Section 87 of the Act, the suit is not maintainable.

3. After considering the rival contentions, the Wakf Tribunal, by an order dated 25.5.2002, allowed I.A.No.67 of 2002, holding that the suit was not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the suit was also dismissed.

4. On 28.09.2004, when this revision petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench. The order of reference reads thus:

"Plaintiffs in O.S.No.140 of 2001 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal are the revision petitioners. The suit was laid for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of the Wakf and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be in the management of the Wakf as trustees. Earlier, a suit was instituted before the Munsiff-Magistrate’s Court, Ponnani, as O.S.No.232 of 1998, and on the constitution of the Wakf Tribunal, the same stood transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. Before the Wakf Tribunal, the defendant raised a contention that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit. They also raised a contention that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 87 of the Act. 2. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 25^th day of May, 2002, held that "the reliefs claimed are as trustees entitled to manage the properties and as such, it has no jurisdiction to protect the interest of a Trust or its Managing Committee". According to the Tribunal, any dispute regarding the Wakf property will not take in the dispute of a Trust or its Managing committee to administer the Wakf. The view taken by the Tribunal is contended to be contrary to the Division Bench decision reported inPookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya [ 2003 (3) KLT 32 ], wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that "the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is wide enough to determine any dispute or question or other matter relating to the wakf or wakf property". Going by the definition of the term ‘Muthavalli’ under Section 2(i) of the Wakf Act 1995, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, ‘Muthavalli’ means any person, committee or Corporation for the time being managing or administering any wakf or wakf property and as such the right to administer the wakf by the trustee when it is t