The rights to administer Wakf properties are based on the explicit terms of the founding documents and cannot be altered without proper legal protocol.

ORDER

P.S.Gopinathan, J.

This revision petition under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act was filed by the 2nd and 6th defendants in O.S.No.17/2001 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. The above suit was originally instituted by Mytheen Vava Rowther. Pending the suit he died. The next senior male member who is the first respondent got himself impleaded and prosecuted the suit.

2. Main averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the sons of deceased Amian Rawther to whom plaint A, B and C shchedule properties belonged. He executed Exhibits A1 and A2 settlement deeds dated 29/9/1956 and 18/6/1958 in favour of his eldest son Mammed Rowther. As per Exhibits A1 and A2 on death of Mammed Rowther, the property would devolve upon the next elder son who was the original plaintiff and on his death it would devolve upon the next eldest male member, the supplementary 2nd plaintiff and so on. In plaint A schedule property there is a Thykkavu and Madrassa to which the Muslim community in the locality had right to worship and it should be maintained as such. Plaint B and C schedule properties are settled to the donees for maintaining the Thykkavu and Madrassa and eversince the donees in succession were managing properties. The defendants who are neighbours had no manner of right over the plaint A, B and C schedule properties and that they had been attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule properties and to interfere with the administration of the properties including Thykkavu and Madrassa by the plaintiffs for which they have no right. With these plea, the plaintiffs sought a decree for declaration of the right of administration and decree for prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the administration and management of the properties.

3. Defendants in their joint written statement contended that the plaint schedule properties are Wakf properties and therefore plaintiffs had no right title or possession over the plaint schedule properties and that as per Exhibits A1 and A2 Wakf deeds, plaint A schedule property was set apart for the use of the local Muslims for their worship and therefore the plaintiff had no right to seek any injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties. It was further contended that plaint B and C schedule properties were dedicated for the maintenance of plaint A schedule property and that eversince Exhibits A1 and A2, plaint B and C schedule properties were managed and used by the Muslims of the locality for their religious purpose. The local Muslims of the locality constructed a Mosque in the property using public funds. A committee was formed for the administration of the Mosque and preservation of the Wakf. Defendants were elected as office bearers of the committee which was functioning for the benefit of the Muslim community and was managing the requisite official documents like marriage register, attendance register etc and that the committee had planted 450 rubber trees in the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiffs had no right to obstruct the administration of the Wakf by the committee consisting of defendants and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. In the light of the above pleadings following issues were raised before the Tribunal:

“1. Whether plaint properties are Wakf properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff has title to and possession of plaint properties and right to restrain defendants from trespassing and taking incomes from the plaint properties?

3. Whether plaintiff has right to administer plaint properties and restrain defendants from interfering with the administration of properties?

4. Whether court fee paid is sufficient?

5. Reliefs and Costs?”

Issue No.4 was considered as preliminary issue and found that the court fee paid was sufficient with reference to the pleadings.

Parties were sent for trial on other issues.

5. On the side of the plaintiffs, second plaintiff was examined as PW1. Second defendant was examined as DW1.

Exhibits A1 to A20, B1 to B13 and C1