AKKODE JUMAYATH PALU PARIPALANA COMMITTEE versus P.V. IBRAHIM HAJI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 1033 · Decided: 23-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1033 
AKKODE JUMAYATH PALU PARIPALANA COMMITTEE 
v. 
P.V. IBRAHIM HAJI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6124-6125 of 2013) 
JULY 23, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Wakf Act: 
A 
B 
Wakf Tribunal - Jurisdiction of - Suit for perpetual C 
injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from 
interfering in administration, management and peaceful 
possession and enjoyment of Mosque - Held: Dispute is with 
regard .to management and peaceful enjoyment of Mosque 
and madrassa and assets which relate to Wakf -- Nature of 
relief shows that Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide 
D 
the disputes - There is no error in the Wakf Tribunal 
entertaining the suit -- High Court committed an error in 
holding otherwise - Order passed by High Court is set aside 
and the matter remitted to it to consider the revision on merits 
- Suit. 
E 
Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Sugra 
Humayun Mirza Wakf 2010 (10 ) SCR 945 = 2010 (8) SCC 
726; Board of Wakf, West Bengal and Another v. Anis Fatma 
Begum and Another 2010 (13) SCR 1063 = 2010 (14) SCC 
588 · - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (10) SCR 945 
referred to 
para 6 
2010 (13) SCR 1063 
referred to 
para 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
6124-6125 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dted 10.11.2010 of the 
1033 
F 
G 
H 
1034 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP No. 1362 of 2004 
and 04.02.2011 in RP No. 87 of 2011. 
K. Rajeev for the Appellant. 
P.V. Dinesh, Bineesh K., Sunil K. Tripathi, Shantanu for the 
8 Respondents. 
The order of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal 
c is whether the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a 
suit for injunctiQh restraining the defendants from interfering with 
the administration, management and peaceful enjoyment of the 
Mosque and ma"drassa run by it and all the assets attached to 
the Mosque. 
D 
3. Appellant, a. society registered under the Societies 
Registration Act stated to be formed for the management and 
administration of wakf property including a Mosque situated 
therein, filed a suit for an injunction before the Court of Munsiff, 
Manjeri, which was transferred to the Court of Wakf Tribunal, 
E Kozhikode and numbered as O.S. No.53 of 2003. The suit was 
contested by the respondents on merits and ultimately it was 
decreed by the Wakf Tribunal on 28.09.2004 and the plaintiff 
was given a decree for a perpetual injunction restraining the 
defendants/respondents and their men from interfering in any 
F manner in the administration, management and peaceful and 
possession and enjoyment of the Mosque, namely, Akkode 
Juyamath Palli, the madrassa run by it and all the assets 
attached to the Mosque. 
4. The respondents herein filed Civil Revision Petition as 
G CRP No.1362 of 2004 under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act 
before the Kerala High Court. The High Court vide its judgment 
dated 10.11.2010 set aside the judgment and decree passed 
by the Wakf Tribunal holding that a suit for injunction is not 
maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the 
H Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through 
AKKODE Jl,JMAYATH PALU PARIPALANACOMMITTEE v.1035 
P.V. IBRAHIM HAJI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] 
Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf 2010 (8) SCC 726. The 
A 
Court also granted permission to the appellant to take back the 
plaint for presenting before the appropriate court. Later the 
appellant preferred a Review Petition which was also 
dismissed by the High court on 04.02.2011. The legality of the 
orders is under challenge in this appeal. 
B 
5. We are of the view that the High Court has committed 
an error in holding that the reliefs sought for by the appellants 
in the suit could not be claimed before the Wakf Tribunal in view 
of the Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) 
Through Lrs. (supra). In Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through 
C 
Lrs. (supra) the question that arose for consideration before this 
Court was whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 
83 of the Wakf Act was competent to entertain and adjudicate 
upon disputes regarding eviction of the appellants who were 
occupying different items of which were admittedly wakf D 
properties. The Wakf Tribunal answered the question of 
jurisdiction in affirmative and decreed the suit which was 
affirmed by the High Court. This Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.