The respondents herein filed O.S.No.64 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Kochi against the revision petitioners for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of administration and management of the plaint A & B schedule properties and also from committing any acts or activities contrary to the plaintiffs' interest in the said properties or detrimental to the Maqam situated therein.
2. Originally, the suit was filed as O.S.No.376 of 2009.
The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable before the civil court and that only the Wakf Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the suit. The contention raised by the defendants was accepted by the court and the plaint was returned for presentation before proper court. Accordingly, the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs on 23.11.2010.
3. The plaint was again presented before the same civil court on 17.2.2011. The plaintiffs contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram v.
Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010(3) KLT 862 (SC)), the suit was maintainable. Accordingly, the suit was numbered as O.S.No.64 of 2011. The defendants took up the same contention that only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction and the civil court does not have jurisdiction. The defendants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Wakf v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010(4) KLT 765 (SC)).
4. The court below, by the order impugned in this revision, held that the civil court has jurisdiction and therefore, the suit is maintainable.
5. In Board of Wakf v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010(4) KLT 765 (SC)), the Supreme Court held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words “any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property” are words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matter whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. In Anis Fatma Begum's case (2010(4) KLT 765 (SC)), the Supreme Court distinguished on facts the decision in Ramesh Gobindram's case (2010(3) KLT 862 (SC)).
6. In Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P.V.Ibrahim Haji and others (2013(9)SCALE 622), the Supreme Court held that a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration, management and peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque and Madrassa run by the Wakf is maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal. The Supreme Court considered the decisions in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010(3) KLT 862 (SC)) and Board of Wakf v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010 (4) KLT 765 (SC)).
7. In Norman Printing Bureau, Kozhikode v.
P.M.Mammu Haji and another (2013(3) KHC 798) = (2013
(4)KLT 606) it was held that the Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum's case distinguished the decision in Ramesh Gobindram's case and therefore, the later decision would prevail. It was also held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the tenant from doing certain acts detrimental to the interests of the Wakf.
8. In view of the decisions in Board of Wakf v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010(4) KLT 765 (SC)), Norman Printing Bureau, Kozhikode v. P.M.Mammu Haji and another (2013(3) KHC 798) = (2013(4)KLT 606) and Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P.V.Ibrahim Haji and others (2013(9) SCALE 622), I am of the view that the court below committed an error in holding that that the suit is maintainable before the civil court. The suit has to be filed before the Wakf Tribunal. The order passed by the court below is accordingly set aside and the court below is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation before the Wakf Tribunal.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
csl
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE