RAMESH GOBINDRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SUGRA HUMAYUN MIRZA WAKF

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 01-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 945 
RAMESH GOBINDRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
V. 
SUGRA HUMAYUN MIRZA WAKF 
(Civil Appeal No. 1182 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Wakf Act, 1995 - s. 6(5), 7, 83 and 85- Wakf Tribunal-
Jurisdiction of -
To decide eviction suit in respect of wakf 
property - Held: The Act does not provide that ·the Wakf C 
Tribunal should decide the dispute regarding eviction of 
tenant in possession of wakf property- Therefore, Eviction suit 
is maintainable before civil court and not before Wakf 
Tribunal. 
Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of civil court vis-a-vis Wakf 
D 
Tribunal constituted under Wakf Act - Determination of -
Discussed. 
Respondent filed suits seeking eviction of the 
appellant-tenant, who was occupying a wakf property. 
Wakf Tribunal holding that it had the jurisdiction to decide 
the issue, decreed the eviction suits. In revision petitions, 
the High Court affirmed the decree. 
In the instant appeals, the question for consideration 
was whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted u/s. 83 of the 
Wakf Act, 1995 was competent to entertain and adjudicate 
upon disputes regarding eviction of the appellants who 
were occupying the wakf property. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The well-settled rule is that the civil courts 
have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except 
those entertainment whereof is expressly or impliedly 
barred. The jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits of civil 
945 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A nature is very expansive. Any statute which excludes 
such jurisdiction is, therefore, an exception to the general 
rule that all disputes shall be triable by a civil court. Any 
such exception cannot be readily inferred by the courts. 
The court would lean in favour of a construction that 
B would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the civil 
courts and shift the onus of proof to the party that 
asserts that civil court's jurisdiction is ousted. Even in 
cases where the statute accords finality to the orders 
passed by the tribunals, the court will have to see 
c whether the tribunal has the power to grant the reliefs 
which the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed 
before them. If the answer is in negative exclusion of the 
civil courts jurisdiction would not be ordinarily inferred. 
[Paras 5 and 6) [954-H; 955-A-D] 
D 
Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), (2009) 4 
SCC 299; Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd. v. Dy. Commr (1968) 1 SCR 
260; Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani AIR 2003 
SC 2508; Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. (1968) 3 SCR 662; 
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536; 
E State of A.P. v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (2000) 3 SCC 689; 
Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh and Ors. (2002) 6 
SCC 416; Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. Ramesh Chandra 
Agarwala AIR 2003 SC 2696; State of Tamil Nadu v. 
RamalingaSamigal Madam AIR 1986 SC 794 - relied on. 
F 
.G 
H 
2. In the instant case, the respondent-Wakf Board who 
claims exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court has not 
discharged the onus that lay upon it. From a conjoint 
reading of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf 
Act, 1995, it is clear that the jurisdiction to determine 
whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a 
wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf, rests entirely with the 
tribunal and no suit or other proceeding can be instituted 
or commenced in a civil court in relation to any such 
question after the commencement of the Act. Under 
RAMESH GOBINDRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 
947 
SUGRA HUMAYUN MIRZA WAKF 
Section 6 r/w Section 7, the institution of the civil court is 
barred only in regard to questions that are specifically 
enumerated therein. The bar is not complete so as to 
extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the 
wakf property. [Paras 8 and 12) [956-A-B; 959-F-H; 960-A] 
Board of Muslim Wakfs Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and 
Ors. (1979) 2SCC 468; Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram 
Panchayat alias Gram Sabha (2000) 2 sec 121 - relied on. 
A 
B 
3. A plain reading of s. 85 would show that the civil 
court's jurisdiction is excluded only in cases where the 
C 
matter in dispute is required under the Act to be 
determined by the tribunal. The words "which is required 
by or under this Act to be determined by tribunal" holds 
the key to the question whether or not all disputes 
concerning the wakf or wakf property stand excluded 
from the jurisdiction of the civil 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.