A.V. LATHEEF Vs. ISLAMIC PROPAGATION CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question arises for consideration in this revision petition. The petitioner who had executed a document styled as a Wakf Deed and cancelled it later by another document, filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) seeking to cancel the Wakf. He has been non-suited citing the principle "Once a Wakf, always a Wakf". We are called upon to examine whether the said principle is one which does not permit any exception.

(2.) The facts are uncontroverted since none of the respondents chose to contest the suit. The revision petitioner executed a document in favour of the 1 respondent, purporting to be a Wakf deed and got it registered as Document No. 380 of 2010 of SRO, Payyoli (produced as Ext.A1 in the suit). Subsequently, he executed another document as document No. 2075 of 2011, cancelling Ext.A1. The possession continued with the petitioner. The 1 respondent did not exercise any right of possession over the property nor were any steps taken to effect transfer of Registry. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal praying for cancellation of the Wakf Deed.

(3.) The 1 respondent remained ex parte. The 2 respondent Wakf Board did not file any written statement. By judgment dated 23.3.2015, the Tribunal dismissed the suit holding that the settled position of law is "Once a Wakf always a Wakf" and that the very definition of Wakf in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act contemplates a permanent dedication. According to the Tribunal, the fact that the petitioner had not parted with possession is not of any consequence, having regard to the above settled principle of law. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Even though the 1 respondent was served a notice of this revision petition, they have not appeared, apparently for the reason that they have accepted the cancellation deed.