##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 24TH BHADRA, 1948 MFA (WAQF) NO. 41 OF 2026 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2026 IN WOS NO.48 OF 2023 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

1 UNGUNGAL NAMASKARA PALLI COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT K.M. MUHAMMEDALI AGED 58 YEARS, SON OF KUTTOOSA HAJI, KUNNUMMAL MANGOTTU HOUSE, P.O. PERUVALLUR, KARIPPUR AMSOM, CHIRAYIL DESOM, KONDOTTI TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638

2 K.M. MUHAMMEDALI AGED 58 YEARS, SON OF KUTTOOSA HAJI, PRESIDENT, UNGUNGAL NAMASKARA PALLI COMMITTEE, KUNNUMMAL MANGOTTU HOUSE, P.O. PERUVALLUR, KARIPPUR AMSOM, CHIRAYIL DESOM, KONDOTTI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638

3 MUHAMMED MUJEEB RAHMAN AGED 57 YEARS, SON OF VEERAN HAJI, PAZHERI HOUSE, PERUVALLUR AMSOM, KERNALLUR DESOM, SECRETARY, UNGUNGAL NAMASKARA PALLI COMMITTEE, P.O. PERUVALLUR, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638 BY ADV SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

1 FLALUDHEEN AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF NEYYAN MUHAMMED, OONIRI HOUSE, PERUVALLUR AMSOM, KERNALLUR DESOM, P.O. PERUVALLUR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638

2 KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, V.I.P. ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017 BY ADVS.

SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A SHRI.SYAM SANKAR PANICKER SHRI.SAFWAN K. OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF BOARD THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL (WAQF) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The plaintiffs in W.O.S.No.48 of 2023 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode (‘the Tribunal’ for short), filed this M.F.A.(Waqf) under Section 83(9) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (‘the Waqf Act’ for short), challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2026 in that W.O.S., whereby the Tribunal dismissed the same as not maintainable.

2. W.O.S.No.48 of 2023 was filed by the appellants-

plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 83 of the Waqf Act for recovery of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property from the 1^st respondent-1^st defendant and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction.

3. As per the pleadings in the plaint, the 1^st plaintiff is a Waqf registered with the Kerala State Waqf Board (‘the Board’ for short) and the plaint ‘A’ schedule property belongs to the Waqf. The property of the defendants is scheduled as plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The defendants trespassed on a portion of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, which is scheduled in the plaint as ‘C’ schedule. According to the plaintiffs, there is no specific boundary between plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Whereas, in the written statement filed by the defendants, the plaint averments are denied and further raised the question of maintainability of the suit. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and the committee has no connection with the plaint schedule property. According to them, the plaint schedule property is not a Waqf property, and they have not trespassed into the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The defendants raised a contention that the plaint ‘C’ schedule property belongs to the defendants and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit.

4. Based on the pleadings in the plaint as well as in the written statement, the Tribunal considered the issue of maintainability of the suit. By the judgment dated 31.03.2026, the Tribunal found that even though it is contended that the plaint ‘C’ schedule property is registered as a Waqf and has been included in the Waqf Register, the plaintiffs did not produce the extract of the relevant register to prove that the plaint schedule property is included in the Waqf Register. Based on the aforesaid finding, by relying on the judgment of the Ap