S ABDULKANI Vs. RAHMANIAPURAM NAINA MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi in O.S.No.881 of 2004, dismissing the Suit in O.S.No.881 of 2004 as barred under Sec.85 of the Wakf Act, 1954. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) O.S.No.881 of 2004:-

(3.) REITERATING the averments in the Counter Statement, learned counsel for the Respondents / Defendants has submitted that the Plaintiffs have no inherent right to bury their deads in the Mayyawadi of Suit Pallivasan, learned counsel has submitted that the Suit Property has been purchased only for keeping the dead body of the three streets viz., Street Nos.1 to 3 of Rahmaniapuram Street and Peer Mohammed Thaikka, Kadayanallur and that the Plaintiffs have no right to bury their deads. It is further submitted that when there is serious dispute regarding the right of the Plaintiffs, that dispute is a question relating to the wakf property and is to be determined only by the Wakf Tribunal. Submitting that under Sec.85 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred, learned counsel for the Respondents / Plaintiffs has submitted that the Plaintiffs ought to have only approached the Wakf Tribunal before approaching the High Court. It is further submitted that rejection of the plaint is a decree from which only regular appeal lies under Sec.96 C.P.C and that the Revision Petition filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.305 of 1988 is not maintainable. Contending that the Revisional jurisdiction of Article 227 of the constitution is to be sparingly exercised and in the case of availability of efficacious alternative remedy, the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision reported in TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM DIVISION II) LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLORE ..VS.. C. DURAI AND ANOTHER (2005 (1) M.L.J. 435). Submitting that only the Wakf Tribunal is to be approached and the High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, much reliance is placed upon the decision reported in I.SALAM KHAN ..VS.. THE TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD (2005 (1) M.L.J. 646).