The court emphasized that claims regarding property status as Wakf must be substantiated with clear evidence, applying provisions of the Wakf Act appropriately in property disputes.

ORDER

T.R.Ravi, J.

Heard Sri K.P.Majeed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri T.C.Suresh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri T.K.Saidalikutty, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Board.

2. The revision petitioner filed W.O.S.No.63 of 2007, before the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam, praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2, their wives, men and agents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing any waste therein, and, from causing any obstruction or hindrance to the measuring out the plaint schedule property with the aid of the officials of the survey department. The property scheduled to the plaint is an extent of 71.460 cents in survey numbers 469/1,6 and 470/2,3 of Palakkad district. According to the plaintiff, they had purchased 57.250 cents by virtue of various sale deeds by raising funds from its members and beneficiaries and got another extent of

14.210 cents by way of Wakf.

3. The petitioner claims absolute title over the plaint schedule property and also claims that the entire extent as waqf property. It is stated that out of the total extent, an extent of 16 cents has not been registered with the Wakf board. The suit was filed contending inter alia that, the respondents 1 and 2 and their family members had on several occasions attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property, that on 25.11.2007 such an attempt was made which was prevented due to timely intervention of the office bearers of the petitioner and that the petitioners did not have any other remedy than to approach the Tribunal for preventing trespass.

4. The 1st defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff did not have any property in survey numbers

469/1, 470/2 and 470/3. It is contended that the plaintiff had purchased 35 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.469/6 as per sale deed No.2267 of 2000. It is stated that 16 cents in Sy.No.469/6 was purchased by 14 persons together as per sale deed No.2268 of 2000 over which the petitioner does not have any right. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not received any property as Wakf and that no document in support of the same has been produced along with the plaint.

5. The 2nd defendant filed written statement contending that the plaint schedule property includes 29 cents of land which belongs to him as per registered document No.1444 of 1978 and registered Will No.641 of 1982 executed by his parents. It is contended that the description and boundaries of the properties shown in the plaint schedule are not correct, that a mill is functioning in the 29 cents of land belonging to the 2nd defendant and that O.S.No.433 of 1998 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad, by the 1st defendant in his capacity as the Mutawalli/Secretary of the petitioner, claiming ownership and possession of the properties belonging to the 2nd defendant, which was dismissed. It is further contended that the documents relating to his title and possession over the 29 cents of land had been produced in the said suit.

6. By judgment dated 12.8.2008, the Tribunal dismissed the suit, finding that though the plaintiff had included 71.460 cents of property in the plaint schedule, they failed to prove their title and possession over the entire extent. The Tribunal found that the property covered by Exhibit A4 document does not belong to the petitioner Wakf. Exhibit A4 document would show that it was executed by one Khadeeja Umma in favour of 14 persons. Exhibit A4 does not show that the 16 cents of property covered by it is a Wakf property. The Tribunal also found that the property covered by Exhibit A4 has not been included in Exhibit A2 extract of register of Wakf properties.

7. The counsel for the plaintiff raises an argument that the property covered by Exhibit A4 is a graveyard and that it has become a Wakf property by user