Claimants to waqf property must file independent suit to establish title; cannot seek impleadment in waqf's injunction suit against encroachers.

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Article 83(9) of the Wakf Act, to set aside the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble I Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Wakf Tribunal) in I.A.No.13661 of 2014 in O.S.No.3954 of 2009.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. L. Gavaskar For Respondent(s): RR1 and 2 – died R3- not ready in notice RR4, 6 and 7 – no appearance Mrs.V.Srimathi for R5

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble I Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Wakf Tribunal) in I.A.No.13661 of 2014 in O.S.No.3954 of 2009.

2. Heard Mr.L. Gavaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

3.The respondents 6 and 7, on whose instance the interlocutory application for impleading has been ordered and which is the subject matter of this Revision have been served with notice and they had also entered appearance through counsel. However, when the matter is taken up today, there is no representation on their behalf. Even though, the Court had recorded the death of the respondents 1 and 2, no steps have been taken and similarly with respect of respondents 3 and 4, notice is yet to be served upon them.

4.Considering the lis that is involved in the present Revision, which relates only to the impleading application filed by the respondents 6 and 7, which has been allowed, this Court is of the view that the presence of the legal heirs of respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 3 and 4 is not necessary and hence, proceeds with the case.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had instituted a suit as early as in the year 2009 seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4, who are the respondents 1 to 4 in the present Revision from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which is a burial ground. He would further submit that in the said suit, the trial had been completed by recording of evidence and it was posted for arguments and at that stage, strangers to the lis had filed an impleading application to implead themselves without any cause. He would further submit that the claim of respondents 6 and 7 is that the said property would belong to them.

6.In that context, he had taken this Court to the Judgment in WP.No.16693 of 2012, which was initially filed by the respondents 6 and 7 along with another person for issuance of writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents therein, namely the 5^th respondent herein and an individual and the Tahsildar of the region from in any manner resorting to any developmental activities by way of construction or grant of lease or otherwise to any other party without establishing their absolute right over the property. He would submit that the said Writ was dismissed, however granting liberty to the petitioners therein to establish their rights in appropriate civil Court. He would submit that without filing an independent suit to establish their right, at the stage of arguments, the respondents 6 and 7 had filed an impleading application in a suit filed by the petitioner for bare injuction against the private defendants therein. He would submit that the Court below without appropriately appreciating the issue that was involved, in a casual manner, had allowed the impleading application. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would reiterate the statements made b