SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.KUMARESH BABU, J
Isbanthiyar Baig Mosque Rep By Its Mutawalli, S. Nagore Meeran – Appellant
Versus
M.V. Laxminarasimma Sah – Respondent
CRP (NPD) No.3865 of 2017|Wakf OS.No.45/2006



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Ram For Mr.M. Ramesh (For R2 To R5), Mr. Avinash Wadhwani (For R6)

Failure to implead Waqf Board under Section 90 renders waqf suit judgment non est and void.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The Waqf Act, 1995, particularly Section 90 mandates impleadment of the Waqf Board in suits concerning waqf properties and issuance of notice. The suit was filed without making the Waqf Board a party. The court found the Tribunal's judgment and decree non est due to non-compliance with statutory requirements under Section 90 and Section 83(9). Second Paragraph: The issue framed is whether the Tribunal's decree is valid absent Waqf Board as party and notice under Section 90. The ratio decidendi holds that failure to implead the Waqf Board renders the judgment contrary to statutory mandates and void ab initio. Third Paragraph: The judgment and decree dated 26.06.2008 in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 stands set aside and Civil Revision Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenges tribunal's decree for waqf os. (Para 1)
2. non-impleadment of waqf board violates section 90. (Para 3 , 4)
3. decree set aside as non est, petition allowed. (Para 5)

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 26.06.2008 and made Wakf OS.No.45/2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Wakf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain For Respondent(s): R1- Died Mr.J.Ram For Mr.M. Ramesh (For R2 To R5) Mr. Avinash Wadhwani (For R6)ORDERThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgement and decree dated 26.06.2008 and made Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District. 2. Heard Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ram, representing Mr.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for the 6threspondent.

3.The present revision has been filed as against the judgment and decree made by the Waqf Tribunal as early as in the year 2008. A perusal of the plaint would indicate that the Waqf Board had not been made a party to the suit, which is mandatory as per the provisions of Section 90 of the Waqf Act, 1995. A perusal of the judgment and decree does not also indicate that notice had been ordered by the Waqf Tribunal to the Waqf Board, as required under of the Waqf Act.

4. In such view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed is contrary to the statutory mandates as required under the Waqf Act, 1995 and hence, the judgment and decree could only be termed as non est in law.

5. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2008 made in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District stands set aside and this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. Liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings on the cause of action, on which the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2006 had been filed is granted. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top