Legal disputes regarding Wakf property require substantiation by evidence, not mere assertions.

ORDER

Amit Rawal, J.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal dated 18.06.2024 whereby the claim of the petitioner – plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly the facts in brief are that the petitioner – plaintiff preferred a suit alleging themselves to be the absolute owner of plaint schedule property on the premise that it was dedicated by Wakif as a Wakf property with permission to perform the prayers in the Valiya Palli and bury their dead in the Khabarsthan and also with prayer for annulling the registration granted to defendants qua registration No.6460/RA. It was alleged that the property was validly dedicated and created as per the document No.1331/1871 S.R.O. Manjeri, 281/1876 S.R.O. Manjeri and 89/1920 S.R.O. Kozhikode which was also registered with the Kerala State Wakf Board bearing registration No.4085/RA. The property having an extent of 9 acres and 50 cents of land in R.S.No.5/1 (old No.309, 310, 310/2A, 310/2B, 331/1) of Vazhakkadu Village was owned by the plaintiff by virtue of the document mentioned above ie., document bearing No.281/1876. The defendants on appearance objected to the maintainability of the suit. Defendants in the written statement denied the averments and alleged that they are the owners of the property. Vazhakkadu Valiya Juma-ath Palli registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act with Registration No.6460/RA and no such property was dedicated to the Wakf as per the documents mentioned in the plaint; in fact it was a public wakf and Vazhakkadu Valiya Juma-ath Palli Paripalana committee is the Mautawalli.

3. Since the parties were at variance following issues were framed:

1) Whether the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

2) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 3) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?

4) Whether the cause of action alleged is true?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration sought for?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for cancellation sought for?

7) Reliefs and costs?

4. Petitioner - plaintiff did not lead any evidence neither oral or documentary. On the other hand the respondents - defendants brought on record eight(8) documents Exts.B1 to B8. When the case was at the fag end of the trial, two miscellaneous applications 378/2024 and 379/2024 were submitted for referring the matter to pre- trial stage and as well as for framing of the additional issues. A request was also made for referring the matter to the mediation which was rejected.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the application for mediation, though at the fag end of the trial, could not have been rejected on account of non-existence of any provisions, which was actually due to misreading of provisions of the Wakf Act envisaging mediation amongst the parties. Even otherwise, no effective dates were given, much less, the case was listed for evidence enabling the petitioner - plaintiff to produce on record evidence.

6. Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz for the Wakf Board accepts notice and denied the contention with regard to the procedure adopted by the Tribunal. Tribunal followed the procedure as enumerated in Code of Civil Procedure by giving opportunity to party to lead evidence after framing of issues and in the absence proceedings on record in support of the aforementioned contention claim is not sustainable.

7. We have heard the learned c