KUNHIMOIDEEN K. Vs. A.P.ABOOBACKER MUSLIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sreekumar Chelur on behalf of the revision petitioner, Sri K.M.Firoz on behalf of respondents 1 to 8 and Sri T.K.Saidalikutty on behalf of respondents 9 and 10.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed O.S.No.205 of 2019 before the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the revision petitioners. According to the plaintiffs, they are officer bearers of an unregistered Committee and the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Abdul Salam, who executed a registered waqf deed in favour of the plaintiffs as Document No.3096 of 2007 of SRO Maniyoor. The contention is that the plaintiffs possess and enjoy the plaint schedule property as Mutawalli of the waqf. The cause of action stated is that the petitioners obstructed the construction of a library in the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, the person who executed the waqf deed did not have any title or possession over the property. They contended that property originally belonged to Koyiparambath Moideen, the grandfather of the 1st and 4th petitioners and the said Moideen has dedicated 10 cents of land in the year 1955 for the purpose of starting a Madrassa in the locality. The petitioners contended that the Madrassa named Imamudheen Madrassa was constructed by a Committee, of which they are the office bearers. It is further contended that Moideen had given a portion of the property to his son Assan, who got the same allotted to him at the partition effected on the death of Moideen. The petitioners contended that 13 cents of land adjacent to the 10 cents wherein the Madrassa building situated was given by Assan to the Madrassa Committee and the Imamudeen Madrassa Committee was hence in possession of 23 cents of land. It can thus be seen that the plaintiffs as well as the defendants claim that the property is wakf property, though by means of different documents. That is, they dispute the manner in which the property became waqf property. Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act deal with the power of the Tribunal to determine disputes regarding the question whether a particular property, specified as Wakf property in the list of Auqaf is Wakf property or not; but does not take in disputes as to how the wakf was created.

(3.) The question whether a suit for injunction is maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike and another reported in [(2019) 4 SCC 698] and it was held that such a suit is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the earlier judgment in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P.V. Ibrahim Haji and others reported in [(2014) 16 SCC 65] and held that the said decision is not in accord with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram vs Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported in [(2010) 8 SCC 726].