Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.  6124-6125  OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.9787-9788 of 2011)

Akkode Jumayath Palli  Paripalana Committee                  .. Appellant

Versus

P.V. Ibrahim Haji and others       ..     Respondents

 O R D E R  

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J  

Leave granted.

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is  

whether the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit  

for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the  

administration,  management  and  peaceful  enjoyment  of  the  

Mosque and madrassa run by it and all the assets attached to the  

Mosque.

Page 2

2

Appellant,  a  society  registered  under  the  Societies  

Registration Act  stated to be formed for  the management and  

administration  of  wakf  property  including  a  Mosque  situated  

therein, filed a suit for an injunction before the Court of Munsiff,  

Manjeri,  which  was  transferred  to  the  Court  of  Wakf  Tribunal,  

Kozhikode and numbered as O.S. No.53 of 2003.  The suit was  

contested  by  the  respondents  on  merits  and  ultimately  it  was  

decreed by the Wakf Tribunal on 28.09.2004 and the plaintiff was  

given  a  decree  for  a  perpetual  injunction  restraining  the  

defendants/respondents  and  their  men  from interfering  in  any  

manner  in  the  administration,  management  and  peaceful  

possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  Mosque,  namely,  Akkode  

Juyamath Palli, the madrassa run by it and all the assets attached  

to the Mosque.

The respondents herein filed Civil  Revision Petition as CRP  

No.1362 of 2004 under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act before the  

Kerala  High  Court.   The  High  Court  vide  its  judgment  dated  

10.11.2010 set  aside  the  judgment  and decree passed by  the  

Wakf Tribunal holding that a suit for injunction is not maintainable

Page 3

3

before a Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the Judgment of this  

Court in  Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs. v.  Sugra  

Humayun  Mirza  Wakf   2010  (8)  SCC  726.   The  Court  also  

granted permission to the appellant to take back the plaint for  

presenting  before  the  appropriate  court.   Later  the  appellant  

preferred a Review Petition which was also dismissed by the High  

court on 04.02.2011.  The legality of the orders is under challenge  

in this appeal.

We are of the view that the High Court has committed an  

error in holding that the reliefs sought for by the appellants in the  

suit could not be claimed before the Wakf Tribunal in view of the  

Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through  

Lrs.  (supra).   In  Ramesh Gobindram (Dead)  Through Lrs.   

(supra) the question that arose for consideration before this Court  

was whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of  

the Wakf Act  was competent to  entertain and adjudicate upon  

disputes regarding eviction of the appellants who were occupying  

different items which were admittedly wakf properties.  The Wakf  

Tribunal answered the question of jurisdiction in affirmative and  

decreed the  suit  which  was  affirmed by  the  High  Court.   This

Page 4

4

Court, after examining the various provisions of the Wakf Act and  

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure held in paras 34 and 35 of  

the Judgment as follows:

“34.   The  crucial  question  that  shall  have  to  be  answered  in  every  case  where  a  plea  regarding  exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is raised is  whether  the  Tribunal  is  under  the  Act  or  the  Rules  required to deal with the matter sought to be brought  before a civil  court. If it  is not, the jurisdiction of the  civil court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required  to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the civil court  would stand excluded. 35. In the cases at hand, the Act does not provide for  any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination  of  a  dispute  concerning  the  eviction  of  a  tenant  in  occupation  of  a  wakf  property  or  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  lessor  and  the  lessees  of  such  property.  A suit  seeking eviction of  the tenants  from  what is admittedly wakf property could, therefore, be  filed  only  before  the  civil  court  and  not  before  the  Tribunal.”  

This Court allowed the appeals and the orders passed by the  

Wakf Tribunal were set aside and the suit filed by the respondents

Page 5

5

for  eviction of the appellants before the Tribunal  was held not  

maintainable.    The  ratio  laid  down  in  the  above-mentioned  

Judgment  later  came up for  consideration  before  this  Court  in  

Board of Wakf,  West  Bengal  and another v.  Anis Fatma  

Begum and another 2010 (14) SCC 588 and the Judgment in  

Ramesh Gobindram (Dead)  Through Lrs.  (supra)  was  held  

distinguishable.  That was a case where the dispute related to the  

Wakf Estate which was created by registered deed of Wakf dated  

22.09.1936.   The  question  raised  was  with  regard  to  the  

demarcation  of  the  Wakf  property,  which  this  Court  held  is  a  

matter  which  fell  under  the  purview   of  the  Wakf  Act.   The  

judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held otherwise was set  

aside and this Court held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to  

decide those disputes.

We  are  of  the  view  that  the  dispute  that  arises  for  

consideration in this case is with regard to the management and  

peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque and madrassa and the assets  

which relate to Wakf.  Nature of the relief clearly shows that the  

Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide those disputes.  We,

Page 6

6

therefore,  find  no  error  in  the  Wakf  Tribunal  entertaining  O.S.  

No.53  of  2003  filed  by  the  appellant  and  the  High  Court  has  

committed  an  error  in  holding  otherwise.   Consequently  the  

impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the  

matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the revision on  

merits.  The appeals are disposed of as above, with no order as to  

costs.

……………………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, July 23, 2013