CRP(WAKF).97 & 102/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/28TH ASWINA, 1939 CRP(WAKF).No. 97 of 2015 () ---------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDERS IN I.A.516/2014 AND 517/2014 IN O.S.NO.33/2013 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 7.2.2015) REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4: -------------------------------------------------- 1. PALOLI KUNHABDULLA HAJI, - S/O.SOOPPY HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS, BUSINESS,VELLIYODE AMSOM,DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. PALLIPARAMBATH AMMAD, - S/O.ASSAN, AGED 45 YEARS, BUSINESS,VELLIYODE AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. METHALE NADUVILAKKANDY POOKKU THANGAL, - S/O.SEETHI THANGAL, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM,DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. VATHUKKAL POKKAR, - S/O.AMMAD,AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS,VELLIYODE AMSOM DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 &2 AND RESPONDENT 5/PLAINTIFFS & 5TH DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ## 1. MANNAMBATH PONNADI AALI, S/O.KALANTHAN,AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS,VELLIYODE AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673101. 2. MANNAMBATH PONNADI THARUVEYI, - S/O.KALANTHAN,AGED 42 YEARS, BUSINESS,VELLIYODE AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673101. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682017. R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE (B/0) R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL) R3 BY SRI.T.P.SAJID, STANDING COUNSEL THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2017, ALONG WITH CRPWK. 102/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP(WAKF).97/2015 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: A1:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE SEAL OF REGISTRATION. A2:A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED BY LAW OF THE SOCIETY. A3:A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANIMEL. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JJ. ========================== C.R.P.(Wakf) Nos.97 & 102 OF 2015 ==========================** Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2017 ## **ORDER** _Ravikumar, J._ The captioned revision petitions arise from the interlocutory orders passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.S.No.33/2013. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 in the said suit. The former revision petition is directed against the common order passed in I.A.Nos.516 of 2014 and 517 of 2014 therein and the latter revision petition is directed against the interim order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.519/2014. I.A.No.516/2014 was filed with the prayer to issue an interim injunction restraining the defendants/revision petitioners therein from renovating or reconstructing the Velliyode Juma Masjid and from collecting any fund for the same and from committing any waste in the plaint schedule property and the Juma Masjid. I.A.No.517/2014 was filed seeking an interim mandatory injunction **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 2 directing defendants 1 to 4 to submit the details of the amount collected from foreign countries as well as from the native country for the renovation work of the Velliyode Juma Masjid. The Tribunal passed the impugned common order on 7.2.2015. As per the same, the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 therein were injuncted from renovating or reconstructing the Juma Masjid and from collecting any fund for the same and from committing any waste to the plaint schedule property and the Juma Masjid thereon. They were also directed by mandatory injunction to submit the details of the amount collected from foreign countries as well as from native country for the renovation work of Velliyode Juma Masjid before the Tribunal within one month from 7.2.2015. The prayer in I.A.No.519 of 2014 was to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to sell the usufructs from the plaint schedule properties for one year by public auction and to deposit the sale amount in court after deducting the expenses. The said I.A as allowed and Advocate Shajir was appointed the Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner was to file a report in terms of the order on 17.3.2015. **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 3 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned standing counsel for the third respondent. 3. We will firstly deal with the former revision petition which is filed against the common order dated 7.2.2015 passed by the Tribunal in I.A.Nos.516 and 519 of 2014. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the Tribunal ought to have considered the question whether the suit itself is maintainable. According to the revision petitioners, the plaintiffs got no locus standi to file the said suit. A scanning of the impugned common order would reveal that after considering the rival contentions advanced at the time of hearing of the interlocutory applications, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there are disputes on the management of the plaint schedule property and also regarding the nature of the plaint schedule property viz., whether it is a wakf property or not. In such circumstances, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that such issues could be decided only after a full trial. After arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal passed the interim orders to preserve the **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 4 subject matter of the suit and essentially for keeping the balance of convenience. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the documents produced before the Tribunal would reveal that the mosque in question is a wakf and its properties are also registered with the wakf Board. It is their contention that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the aforesaid interlocutory applications. But, when once the Tribunal after hearing the rival submissions found that there is dispute regarding the very nature of the properties i.e., whether it is a wakf property or not, there can be little doubt with respect to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the said question. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in **Rajasthan Wakf Board v. Devki Nandan Pathak and Ors. [2017** **(2) KLJ 717]** held that the question whether a property is a wakf property or not could be adjudicated only by the Wakf Tribunal. In such circumstances, the question is whether the Tribunal ought to have considered that issue as a preliminary issue. 4. The question whether a property is a wakf property or not **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 5 and to decide the jurisdiction based on the same can only be a mixed question of fact and law. When that be so, under the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a question would not fall within the exception to sub-rule 2(1) of Order XIV C.P.C. In such circumstances, in terms of Order XIV Rule 2(1), the Tribunal is bound to pronounce the judgment on all issues involved in the suit. As long as the aforesaid question is a mixed question of law and fact, the Tribunal was justified in not deciding that issue as preliminary question invoking the power under sub rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV, C.P.C. Very rightly the Tribunal held that such issues can be decided only on full trial. Thus, it can be seen that taking into account the nature of the disputes, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that for balance of convenience as also for preserving the issues live, it is necessary to pass interim orders on the applications. It is the culmination of such consideration that constrained the Tribunal to pass the orders as aforesaid. 5. As noticed hereinbefore, as per the interim order assailed in the former revision petition, the petitioners 1 to 4 were restrained **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 6 from renovating or reconstructing Velliyode Juma Masjid and from collecting any fund for the same or committing any waste to the plaint schedule property and Juma Masjid thereon. On perusing the interim direction restraining the revision petitioners from renovating or reconstructing the Juma Masjid, we are of the view that at this distance of time, the said order does not invite any modification and we are of the view that what is plausible and desirable is to issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. But at the same time, taking into account the common case that Velliyode Juma Masjid requires renovation and reconstruction, we are of the view that order of injunction restraining the respondents from collecting any fund for renovation or reconstruction of the Juma Masjid requires modification. We are of the view that even while permitting the revision petitioners to collect fund for the aforesaid purpose, they should be made accountable for such collection. In such circumstances, while declining to interfere with the interim order of injunction in I.A.No.516/2014 from restraining the respondents from renovating or reconstructing the Juma Masjid and also from **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 7 committing any waste to the plaint schedule property and the Juma Masjid, we modify the said order of injunction to the extent it restrained respondents 1 to 4 from collecting fund for renovating or reconstructing the Juma Masjid by vacating the same and permitting to collect fund for the aforesaid purpose. At the same time, we make it clear that such collection shall be made strictly in accordance with all relevant provisions of law regulating receipt of money from foreign countries and within the country and further that collection of such fund shall be made only through an account opened for that purpose in a nationalised bank. There will be a further direction that in case the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 had not so far submitted any account in terms of the direction in I.A.No.517/2014, they shall do so within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the latter revision petition, as already noticed, the challenge is against the order passed in I.A.No.519 of 2014. As per the said order, the Tribunal appointed an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of selling usufructs from the plaint schedule property for one year by public auction and to deposit the sale amount in court **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 8 after deducting the expenses. When the revision petition came up for admission on 10.3.2015, the Division Bench after admitting the revision petition passed an interim order in I.A.No.676/2015 as hereunder:- “There will be a stay as prayed for, for a period of four months. In the meanwhile, if any usufructs are collected by the Paripalana Committee, the same will be subject to further orders in this appeal. They will also submit accounts to the Board and file a detailed report before this Court.” Though such a direction was issued to the respondents to submit account to the Board and to file a detailed report before this Court, the revision petitioners submitted that owing to an oversight, though accounts were submitted to the Board, detailed report could not be filed before this Court. Such a lapse is certainly serious and deprecative. However, in view of the order which we propose to pass in this revision petition, we do not propose to initiate any action for the said failure. We are of the view that this revision petition can be disposed of by making the interim order passed by this Court on 10.3.2015 permitting the revision petitioners to collect usufructs and **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 9 submit accounts to the Board absolute and subject to the outcome of O.S.No.32/2013. At the same time, the reports of such accounts for the previous years which ought to have been filed before this Court, shall be filed before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the revision petitioners i.e., Paripalana Committee, after collecting usufructs, shall file report before the Tribunal. The revision petitions are disposed of as above. It is made clear that after submission of such accounts as directed hereinbefore within the above stipulated time, in case any of the parties make a prayer for an expeditious disposal of the suit, taking into account the fact that the suit is of the year 2013, the Tribunal shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 6 months from the date of filing of such an application. There will be no order as to costs. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** 10 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** 11 **C.R.P.(Wakf).97 & 102/2015** **JUDGMENT September, 2010**