The Wakf Act, 1995, vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Special Tribunal for matters related to Wakf or Wakf property, barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

(Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 10.4.1996 made in O.S.No.192 of 1993.)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

The appellant is the plaintiff, who laid O.S.No.192 of 1993 before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, for declaration to declare that he is the sole trustee of the Wakf, known as 'Sikkandhar Trust of Nagore'; for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant in interfering with the plaintiff's management in the Trust and for various other reliefs, on the following facts and circumstances: -

2.1. The plaintiff is a resident of Nagore and he hails from an affluent and pious family of Muslims. His ancestor one Sikkandhar Rowthar, who scrupulously followed the Mohammedan tenets, dedicated the suit schedule properties to a Wakf and a Wakf Deed came to be registered on 16.12.1904. The said Sikkandhar Rowthar, being the founder of the Trust, constituted himself the Wakif and in terms of the Wakf, after the lifetime of the said Sikkandhar Rowthar, his son-in-law one Yusuff Serang shall be the Wakif and after his death, a male descendant of the family would become the trustee. But, since the said Yusuff Serang predeceased Sikkandhar Rowthar, his son, Bava Moideen, being the only male descendant, became the Wakif and was administering the Trust.

2.2. While the matter stood thus, the said Bava Moideen died in the year 1953 and the plaintiff is the only male issue in the family and since, he was then a minor, one Mohamed Ghouse endeared himself to the plaintiff's family and was looking after the properties on his behalf. After the death of the said Mohamed Ghouse, the plaintiff, under law, became the only Wakif and his status has to be formally declared in view of the orders of the 2nd respondent Board. The lands are under the cultivation of the tenants and the buildings are under the possession of lessees. It is the case of the plaintiff that his close relatives have also recognised his indisputable right to trusteeship.

2.3. However, the first respondent, who is another descendant on the female line of the founder, claiming a right over the trusteeship, filed an application before the 2nd respondent Board, who passed an order on 27.6.88 recognising the first respondent as a Trustee of the Wakf. On coming to know of this, when the plaintiff moved an application before the 2nd respondent Wakf Board, the same was dismissed on 19.1.93. Hence, aggrieved against the said orders of the 2nd respondent Wakf Board, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the reliefs as referred to above.

3.1. The first respondent/first defendant resisted the suit on the ground that since the relief sought for by the plaintiff is as per Section 55 of the Wakf Act read with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prior permission must be obtained from the Wakf Board and since the same has not been obtained, the suit is not maintainable. As per Section 15(2)(g) of the Wakf Act, the Wakf Board has powers to appoint or to remove the Mutavallis in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf Act and in consonance with the terms of the Wakf Deed. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not appointed by the Wakf Board and after the death of Mohamed Ghouse in 1986, the plaintiff was not taking care of the Wakf and since, there was no one to take care of the trust, the 1st defendant, being the male member of the family through the daughter of the founder, applied before the Wakf Board to appoint him as a Mutawalli and the Board, after holding an enquiry, appointed him as the Mutawalli.

3.2. It is the further case of the first defendant that the contention of the plaintiff that the descendants from female line are prohibited from becoming the trustee is not correct, since, what is referred to in the Deed is "Santhdhi", which includes both female and male descendants from among the descendants, who are eligible to be the Mutawalli. Thus, pointing out that the application filed by the plaintiff before the 2nd