SARDAR KHAN AND ORS. versus SYED NAJMUL HASAN (SETH) AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 28-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, TARUN CHATTERJEE · 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)

A 
SARDAR KHAN AND ORS. 
1( 
SYED NAJMUL HASAN (SETH) AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MATHUR AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Wakf Act, 1995: 
S. 7(5) read with ss. 6 and 85-Jurisdiction of civil court-Suit filed 
C in civil court before coming into force of the Act-Judgment delivered by 
trial court and appeal filed before High Court after coming into force of the 
Act-Held, on a co1yoint reading of ss. 7 (5) and 85, result would be that the 
Act will not be applicable to the pending suits, proceedings, appeals or 
revisions which have commenced prior to 1. 1.1996, i.e., coming into force of 
D the Act-Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to decide the suit or the appeal 
arising therefrom instituted or commenced in a civil court under sub-s. (/) 
of s. 6 before the commencement of the Act-Matter remitted to High Court 
for deciding the appeal in accordance with law. 
Syed lnamul Haq Shah v. State of Rajasthan AIR (2001) Raj. 19, 
E overruled. 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1107 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B.C.F.R.A. No. 64/1996. 
H.L. Tiku, Santosh Paul, Kavin Mohan, M.J. Paul, C.K. Sasi for the 
Appellants. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhania, 
Pratibha Jain for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
I. Leave granted. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
436 
f . 
SARDAR KHAN v. SYED NAJMUL HASAN (SETH) 
437 
3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single A 
Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, dated 23.5.2005 whereby 
the learned Single Judge had set aside the judgment and decree passed by 
the Addi. District & Session Judge-VI, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 29/95 (271176) 
dated 23.1.1996 and held that parties shall approach the Wakf Tribunal for 
further relief in the matte~. 
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Appeal 
are that a suit being Civil Suit No. 29/95 (271/76) was filed by the Plaintiffs 
(Respondents-herein) in the Court of Addi. District & Session Judge-VI, 
B 
~ J 
Jaipur, which was dismissed. 
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment dismissing the suit, an appeal C 
was filed by the Plaintiffs (Respondents-herein) before the High Court taking 
the plea that by virtue of Section 85 of The Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter 
referred to as "The Act"), the Civil Court ceased to have any jurisdiction in 
the matter, and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Addi. 
District Judge, Jaipur was without jurisdiction. 
6. In this connection the learned Single Judge, relying upon a decision 
of the learned Single Judge of the same High Court in the case of Syed fnamul 
D 
JA 
Hag Shah v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR (2001) Rajasthan 19, allowed 
the appeal and set aside the order of the Addi. District Judge, Jaipur and 
.... ,. 
directed the parties to appear before Wakf Tribunal. 
E 
7. Aggrieved against this order, the Defendants (Appellants-herein) 
have come in appeal by way of special leave petition. 
8. Learned counsel for the Appellants has invited our attention to sub-
section (5) of Section 7 and submitted that the attention of the learned Singie F 
Judge was not invited to sub-section (5) of Section 7 of The Wakf Act, 1995. 
It was submitted that learned Single Judge decided the matter on the basis 
of Section 85 of the Act de hors sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Act. 
Section 85 of the Act reads as under: 
"85. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- No suit or other legal G 
proceeding shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, 
question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other 
matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a 
Tribunal." 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly 
relied upon the judgment in Syed lnamul Hag Shah's case (supra) and set 
) 
_.. 
aside the judgment and decree passed by the Addi. District Judge, Jaipur, 
because in this case also learned Single Judge did not consider sub-section 
(5) of Section 7 and decided the matter solely on the basis of Section 85 of 
B the Act. Hence, the impugned decision given by learned Single Judge is not 
correct and not in accordance with Section 7(5) read with Section 85 of the 
Act. 
c 
D 
E 
9. Learned counsel for the Respondents has supported
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.