ABDULLA Vs. ISMALUTTY MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Sec. 83(9) of the Waqf Act challenging the judgment dated 28-1-2012 passed by the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.S. No. 10/2011. The revision petitioner was the 1st defendant, respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs, the 3rd respondent was the 3rd defendant and the 4th respondent was the 2nd defendant, before the Tribunal. The suit was one for declaration and injunction. Declaration was sought to the effect that Ext. A-2 which is a settlement deed bearing No. 1394/1993 of Sub Registry, Chathamangalam, is null and void and not binding on the waqf. Injunction was sought against the 1st and 2nd defendants to restrain them permanently from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property and committing waste thereon and also from doing any acts against the title and possession of the Munnoor Juma Ath Palli. The suit was decreed as sought for. It is aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Waqf Tribunal in O.S. No. 10/2011 that the captioned revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and'2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. Though notice was ordered to the 4th respondent, it was returned with the endorsement 'unclaimed' and subsequently, as per order dated 18-6-2012, it was declared that notice was served on him.

(3.) For a proper disposal of the revision petition, it is inevitable to narrate the facts in succinct. The plaint schedule property, viz; Parakkamthodika paramb comprised in Sy. No. 12 (re-survey No. 4/1-B) is having an extent of 18 x 9 1/2 six feet koles (13.5 cents). Indisputably, it is the common case that the said property belonged to one Kunjambu. In the impugned judgment, it is stated that the said Kunjambu is the grandfather of the 1st defendant/ revision petitioner. The learned counsel on both sides submit that in fact, the 1st defendant/revision petitioner is the son of the said Kunjambu and 2nd defendant, viz.; the 4th respondent herein is the son of the 1st defendant/ revision petitioner. In other words, he is the grandson of the said Kunjambu. Subsequently, as per Ext. A-1, partition of the properties belonged to Kunjambu was effected in the year 1956.