KASIM MARAICAIR Vs. HAJI KATHIJA BEEVI TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the order of the Wakf Tribunal(Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam) in WOP. No. 2 of 2007.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposing of the above Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

(3.) The petitioners herein has resisted the above Original Petition by inter alia contending that the petitions were barred for non joinder as necessary parties, since the Wakf Board had not been impleaded as a party. They would further contend that the person who had initiated the proceedings as trustee namely Ummalhutha was not the eldest legal heir as contemplated under the trust deed dtd. 12/7/1939 and therefore the petition filed by her was not maintainable. It was their specific case that the trustee was Chinnachi Ponnu Nachiar and the petition ought to have been filed by her. It was their case that the front portion of the Wakf property consisted of three shops with two shops being situate on the Northern side and one shop on the Southern side. The said shop on the Southern side is always enjoyed by Vanjore Maraicair as his own property and on his death his son Ibrahim Marakkayar had been enjoying the property and after him his sons were in enjoyment. It was their specific case that the shop in question bearing Door No. 71 and was all along enjoyed as a separate property. On 14/1/2003, Ibrahim Marakkayar had settled this property in favour of the second petitioner. It was also their case that by the trust not taking possession of the property from the date of the settlement was wrong and the second petitioner continued to live in the suit property. It was also the case that the tenant who had been residing in the said property had surrendered possession to the second petitioner and the possession of that property is in the hands of the second petitioner. It is being enjoyed as an extension of the hotel being run by the second petitioner in the premises. The petitioners would contend that their open possession of the said property as absolute owner has not been objected by the respondent trust and therefore it cannot now been questioned. On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioners, that it was the brother of the Trustee of the respondent who had forcibly entered the premises by breaking open the lock.