Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., NEDUNGOTTUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK – Appellant
Versus
CHENNIKKATT AALIKKOYA, S/O.IMBICHAMMU HAJI, CHENNIKKATT HOUSE, NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK – Respondent
CRP(WAKF) NO. 714 OF 2018 | CRP(WAKF) NO. 233 OF 2018 | CRP(WAKF) NO. 3 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For the Respondents: SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SRI.T.P.SAJID, SRI.SRINATH GIRISH, SMT.M.SHAJNA, SMT.FEMINA K.M., SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL, SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

The failure to join a necessary party invalidates a trial court's judgment, necessitating remand for fresh consideration.

Headnote:This judgement concerns civil revision petitions filed under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Wakf Tribunal's decision in O.S.No.17 of 2014. The Tribunal partly decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent from a school property, determining that certain defendants must vacate the premises. The arguments framed included the maintainability of the suit and the question of necessary parties, specifically whether the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation should have been included. The court found that the failure to join the Corporation as a necessary party rendered the Tribunal's judgment flawed. As a result, the court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for due process. The final ruling set aside the impugned judgment and ordered the Tribunal to allow the Corporation to be added as a defendant for proper adjudication.

Table of Content
1. civil revision petitions overview and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. orders and findings from the wakf tribunal. (Para 5 , 6)
3. discussion on non-joinder of necessary parties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. final ruling and directions to the tribunal. (Para 12)

COMMON ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

These civil revision petitions are filed under Section 83 (9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 , as it stood at the time of filing of these petitions, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in O.S.No.17 of 2014. The petitioner in C.R.P. (Wakf) No.233 of 2018 is the 4^th defendant, the petitioners in C.R.P. (Wakf) No.714 of 2018 are defendants 1 and 2, and the petitioner in C.R.P. (Wakf) No.3 of 2023 is a third party to O.S. No.17 of 2014. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this common order in their status as they were before the Tribunal in the suit.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.17 of 2014 before the Tribunal seeking the reliefs of eviction and arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property comprised in survey No.195/1 (R.S.618) and the building bearing No.22/462 situated thereon, in the Panniyankara Village, is a wakf property by virtue of wakf deed No.968/49. The plaintiff is the mutawalli of the above-mentioned wakf. The plaint schedule building was let out to

2025:KER:98691 the State to conduct Kottummal Government L.P. School. The present monthly rent is Rs.244/-, and the rent was paid only up to the month of February 1996. The remaining rent after the above-mentioned period has been kept in arrears without sufficient reason. Since there is insufficient number of students in the school, it is a financial burden to the State to run the school. So, the plaintiff caused to send a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to the defendants 1 and 2 on 08.11.2013, terminating the tenancy for which the 2^nd defendant alone replied. But the building is not vacated. Hence, the suit is filed for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule building and also for arrears of rent from March 1996 till the institution of the suit, which is calculated at Rs.52,460/-.

3. In the suit, the 2^nd defendant and supplemental 4^th defendant filed separate written statements, denying the plaint averments.

4. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issues:

“1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable under law?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief as claimed

2025:KER:98691 for?

3. Reliefs and costs?

Additional issues

1. Whether the suit is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties?

2. Whether the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction?

3. Whether the relief of arrears of rent is barred by limitation?”

5. From the side of the plaintiff, he gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 documents were marked. From the side of the defendants, the 2^nd defendant was examined as DW1 and the 4^th defendant was examined as DW2 and Exts.B1 to B22 documents were marked, out of which Exts.B9, B10, B15 and B17 were marked subject to proof.

6. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2017, decreed the suit in part. The operative portion of the judgment read thus:

“16. Issue No.(3):--In the result:-

(a) The suit is decreed in part.

(b) The defendants 1 and 2 are directed to give vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and the building to the plaintiff within a period of six months from today. If

2025:KER:98691 the defendants fail to comply with the above said direction, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it evicted in accordance with the law.

(c) The plaintiff is also entitled to get Rs.8,784/- as arrears of rent for three years immediately prior to the institution of the suit.

(d) The plaintiff is also entitled for the cost of the suit from the defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document