Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40602
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, Easwaran S., JJ
CHUZHUVANCHIRA MUSLIM JAMA-TH – Appellant
Versus
SHAHUL HAMEED – Respondent
CRP(WAKF) 718/2018
N.KRISHNA PRASAD, N.ANAND, BIJITH S.KHAN, SRI.T.R.RAJAN FOR R2, SRI.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD, SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD, SRI JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF BOARD
The refusal to register a marriage by the Jama-ath was found arbitrary and unlawful, mandating compliance with customary duties under the Waqf Act.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act - The petitioners challenged the order of the Wakf Tribunal regarding the registration of a marriage and issuance of a marriage certificate. The Tribunal found the refusal to register the marriage arbitrary and unlawful, granting a mandatory injunction for registration. (Paras 2, 4, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were not vitiated by extraneous considerations and that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration and mandatory injunction for the registration of their marriage, which was conducted on 11.6.2006, but the Jama-ath failed to register it despite receiving fees and notifications.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled that the refusal to register the marriage was arbitrary and unlawful, ordering the Jama-ath to register the marriage and issue a certificate.
Issues: The main issues included the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a declaration and mandatory injunction for marriage registration and the legality of the defendants' actions regarding excommunication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the defendants had a customary duty to register the marriage and that there was no legal basis for their refusal.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
O R D E R
Easwaran S.,J.
Chuzhuvanchira Muslim Jama-ath and its President and Secretary have come up with the present revision petition challenging the order in OS (Wakf) No.05/2015 of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. They are defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit.
2. The suit was instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for a declaration, mandatory injunction and compensation on account of the refusal of the petitioner Jama-ath to register the marriage of one Binumol, the daughter of the 1st plaintiff, with Talseem, the son of the 2nd plaintiff. The marriage was conducted on 11.6.2006 at Salamath Hall, Karbala, Kollam. The factum of the marriage was intimated to the 4th defendant by the respondents/plaintiffs and applied for an invitation letter to be served on the 5th defendant also. As directed by the 4th defendant, the 1st plaintiff paid Rs.901/- as Nikah fees and other fees. On 4.5.2006, the 4th defendant issued an invitation letter addressing the 5th defendant Jama-ath, and the invitation letter was produced before the 6th defendant by the 2nd plaintiff on 9.5.2006 and paid Rs.1,252/- on various heads. On 15.5.2006, the 6th defendant also issued a consent letter addressing the 1st defendant and was served on the 4th defendant on the same day. On 11.6.2006, the 6th and 8th defendants and Katheeb of the 5th defendant Jama-ath were present in the Salamath Hall. The 2nd and 4th defendants and their authorised persons did not reach the hall at the time of the marriage. Though the 1st plaintiff and his men approached the 1st defendant, the office was locked. Thus the 2nd and 4th defendants and Katheeb of the 1st defendant absented themselves and failed to discharge their duty to attend the marriage. After the marriage, the 1st plaintiff filed an application for issuance of marriage certificate, but no reply was given. Similarly, there was no reply given to the 2nd plaintiff also to his application filed on 29.6.2006 for issuance of the marriage certificate. On 12.9.2006, the 2nd plaintiff caused a lawyer’s notice to be issued demanding the marriage certificate. He sent another notice requesting to accept the subscription fee and other amounts due to the Jama-ath and to issue the marriage certificate. However, despite this, the marriage certificate was not issued. Defendants 1 to 8 are wilfully not registering the marriage in the marriage register of the Jama-ath and issuing the certificate of marriage, and they are taking hasty steps to expel the plaintiffs and their families from the membership of the Jama-ath. Hence, they approached the Wakf Tribunal. 3. The 5th and 6th defendants entered appearance and contested the claim stating that the suit is not maintainable. Though it was contended that the defendants 5 and 6 issued a consent letter for the proposed marriage, the statements in the plaint that the marriage between Binumol, the daughter of the 1st plaintiff, and Talseem, the son of the 2nd plaintiff, was performed at about 11.30 a.m. on 11.6.2006 at Salamath Hall, Karbala, Kollam in the presence of 6th and 8th defendants, were denied. Other contentions were also raised. Based on the pleadings on record, the tribunal framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration as prayed? 2. whether the plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction directing the defendants to register the marriage of plaintiffs children solemnized on 11.6.2006 as prayed?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction directing the defendants to collect the amounts of subscription and contributions as prayed?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration that muthavalies shall not abuse the power against the beneficiaries on encroaching upon the subjects in Sharia other than Wakf as prayed?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get mandatory injunction to pay compensation as prayed?
6. reliefs and costs.?
4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked and PW1 to PW3 were examined. DW1 was examin
