Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
DR. ABDUL KHADER – Appellant
Versus
P.K. AHAMMED KUTTY – Respondent
CRP(WAKF) 7/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.REEHA KHADER, SREELAKSHMI SABU, UMMUL FADLA T.
For the Respondents: SRI JAMSHEED HAFIZ SC WAQF
The resolution of Muthawalliship claims involving waqf property is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board.
Headnote:The CRP(Wakf) was filed against the judgment in OS No.6 of 2021 regarding Muthawalliship claim. The court referred the issue to the Waqf Board for decision based on the precedent in S.V.Cheriyakoya Thangal Vs. S.V.P.Pookoya, emphasizing that such matters should be adjudicated by the Board. The court concluded that all parties must appear before the Waqf Board to resolve the dispute according to the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties must appear before the waqf board for adjudication. (Para 2) |
This CRP(Wakf) has been filed against the judgment in OS No.6 of 2021 of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode with condonation of delay of 55 days. The claim set up in the suit was for Muthawalliship and as well as the scheduled property being not waqf property. The case of Muthawalliship in view of 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, cannot be decided by the Tribunal.
2. In view of the judgment, cited supra, the controversy with regard to the Muthawalli has to be decided by the Waqf Board. Without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits on the oral and documentary evidence, we relegate the parties to appear before the Waqf Board. The Waqf Board is directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law.
