Nusrathul Islam Jama-ath Committee v. T.P. Mohammed Ali Haji and others

1 AS 198/1999 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945 AS NO. 198 OF 1999 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 12/1997 DATED 22.9.1998 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, HOSDRUG ``` ``` APPELLANT /2[ND] PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT BELOW: ``` ``` NUSRATHUL ISLAM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, V.K.ABOOBACKER HAJI,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, BUSINESSMAN, RESIDING AT PADNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/DEFENDATNS 1 TO 12 & 1[ST] PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT BELOW:`** ``` 1T.P.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, S/O.KUNJAMINA UMMA, THEKKEPURA PATTILLATH, KALIKADAVU DESOM, PADNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. (DIED) 2K.V.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.ZAINABA UMMA, KAVVOYIMMADA , PADNE, VADAKKEPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD 3BASHEER AHAMMED HAJI S/O.ASSIYMMA, PADNE, VADAKKEPURAM HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD 4C.H.HASSAINAR, S/O.UDINOOR VADAKKEPURAMARAUMMA, CHODICHIMMADE, PADNE, VADAKKEPURAM HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. (DIED) 5VADAKKE KOLOTH KAIPATTIL MUHAMMED KUNHI S/O.KUNJAMINA UMMA, PADNE, VADAKKEPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD ``` 2 AS 198/1999 - `6 P.V.C.SULAIMAN, S/O.PANDIYALAYIL ABOOBACKER, PATTILATH, PADNE, VADAKKEPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD` - `7 KATHEEBINTAVIDE BEEPATHUMMA, D/O.KUNJAMINA, POLLAYIL, PADNE, VADAKKEPURAM HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD` - `8 PALLIKKALAKATH ABOOBACKER HAJ, S/O.AYISUMMA, PADNE, THEKKEPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD (DIED)` - `9 V.K.ABDUL KADER HAJI, S/O.KUNAJAMINA UMMA, PADNE, VADAKKEPURAM HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD (DIED)` - `10 MEEYANATH KHATHIBENETEVIDE KUNHI MOIDEENKUTTY S/O.SAFIATH, PADNE THEKKEPURAM , HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD` - `11 THAYEL PERINGALATH ABDUL KAREEM HAJI,S/O.MARIYUMMA,PADNE, THEKKEPURAM HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD` - `12 THE KERALA WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (SECRETARY), WAKF BOARD OFFICE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM` - `13 T.P.ABOOBACKER S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PADNE, VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD …(DELETED)` ``` R13 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 6.8.2019 IN I.A.NO.2/19. ``` - `14 P.V.SALAM, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI P., RESIDING NEAR KAVUNTHALA MADRASSA, P.O. PADANNA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312.` - `15 P.V.PATHUTTY D/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI P., SUFAIRA MANZIL, THEKEPURAM (NEAR PUTHIYA PALLI), P.O.PADANNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312.` - `16 AYSHA P.V. D/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI P., RASIFA MANZIL,VANNATHAMMUK, P.O.PADANNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312.` - `17 SAINABA W/O.P.ABOOBACKER HAJI, NEAR THEKKEKAD BAND ROAD, THEKKEPRURAM, P.O.PADANNA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312.` - `18 SHABEER T.C., S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI P., THEKKEKAD BAND ROAD, THEKKEPURAM, P.O. PADANNA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312.` 3 AS 198/1999 ``` 19SHAFEEK T.C. S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI P., THEKKEKAD BAND ROAD, THEKKEPURAM, P.O. PADANNA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 20SHABNA, D/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI P., THEKKEKAD BAND ROAD, THEKKEPURAM, P.O. PADNNA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 312.(LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 8TH RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS R14 TO R20 AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2018 IN IA 533/2012) 21BEEFATHUMMA J.K., W/O.HASSAINAR, PADNE MARKET ROAD, P.O.PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 22BASHEER T.M.A. S/O.HASSAINAR, PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 23SAMAD T.K. S/O.HASSAINAR, MARKET ROAD, P.O.PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 24T.K.SARU W/O.HASSAINAR C.K., MARKET ROAD, P.O. PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 25T.K.MUHAMMED KUNHI S/O.HASSAINAR, MARKET ROAD, P.O. PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. (LEGAL HERIS OF DECEASED 4TH RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 21 TO 25 AS PER ORDER DATED 2/7/2013 IN IA NO.1292/2012) 26KUNHAMI AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, T.P.ROAD, PADNE PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 27KUNHOOTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, T.P.ROAD, PADNE PO., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 28ARIF, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, T.P.ROAD, PADNE PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 29AFSATH, AGE 40 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, T.P.ROAD, PADNE PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 30FOUSIYA, AGED 38 YEARS D/O.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, T.P.ROAD, POROTT, PADNE PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312. 31SUMAYYA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, POROTT, PADANNA PO, KASARAGOD-671 312. (LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 26 TO 31 AS PER ORDER DATED 6/8/2019 IN IA NO.1/2019.) 32AFSATH, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, P.O.KAITHAKKAD, KASARAGOD-671 313. ``` 4 AS 198/1999 ``` 33SIRAJ, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER HAJI, P.O.KAITHAKKAD, KASARAGOD-671 313. 34RAIHANATH, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, P.O.KAITHAKKAD,PIN – 671 313. 35JAFFAR, S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, AGED 25 YEARS, P.O.KAITHAKKAD, KASARAGOD-671 313. 36SUMAYYA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, P.O.KAITHAKKAD, KASARAGOD-671 313. 37KUNHAMI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PANDIYALA VALAPP, P.O.PADNE, KADAPPURAM, VALIPAYARAMBA, KASARAGOD-671 312. 38RAFEEQUE, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PANDIYALAVALAPPU, P.O.PADNE KADAPPURAM, VALIPAYARAMBA, KASARAGOD-671 312. (LEGAL HERIS OF DECEASED 9TH RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPODNENTS 32 TO 38 AS PER ORDER DATED 6/8/2019 IN IA 1/2019). 39THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL.R39 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED IN THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 20.7.2022 IN AS.198/99) BY ADVS. ALIAS M.CHERIAN, JINU JOSEPH, } R2,R3,R5, SHIJU VARGHESE, HANEEF, ANWAR BASHEER –} R6,R7,R10 R2,3,5,6,7,10 AND 11. } & R11 SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, } SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, } SC, KERALA STATE WAKF SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA } BOARD ADV.C. KHALID } FOR R17 TO R20 AND PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP } R21 TO R25 U.P.BALAKRISHNAN – R14 TO R16, R32 TO R38. GOVT. PLEADER FOR R39 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` JAMSHEED HAFIZ SC ``` ``` THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.10.2023, THE COURT ON 6.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 AS 198/1999 ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 6[th] day of November 2023) The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were defendant Nos.1 to 12 in O.S.No.12 of 1997 on the files of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Hosdurg. 2. The suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession. The plaintiff is a committee by name Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath Committee, Padne, Kalikkadavu, registered with the Kerala Wakf Board and also under the Societies Registration Act. The present plaintiff/committee is the successor committee of an earlier committee to which the 1[st] defendant was the president. The Muslim inhabitants of Kalikkadavu were formerly under the administrative control of the Jama-Athil Islam Daras Committee Padne. In course of time, when the number of members increased, a separate 6 AS 198/1999 congregation known as Kalikkadavu Badar Mosque and Madrasathul Hameedia was looking after the mosque and the religious needs of the muslims in that area. In 1961, a committee by name Madrassuthul Hameedia was formed. The committee registered the mosque, madrassa and its properties with Kerala Wakf Board as per registration No.B.1122/R.A/1961. In 1969, the name of the committee was changed to Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath Committee and it was informed to the Kerala Wakf Board, which was approved by it. The plaintiff was the Muthawalli of the mosque madrassa and its properties. From 01.01.1981 onwards, the plaintiff committee was functioning independently, and the properties of the plaintiff committee were also trust properties. The earlier committee had no by-law or regulations for the administration of the mosque, madrassa, the properties and the administration were being done as per the custom, usage, and convention. Later a committee was elected in 1981. In 1981 it was resolved 7 AS 198/1999 by the muslim inhabitants of Kalikkadavu Bader Mosque that a by-law should be framed for the administration of the mosque, madrassa and its properties. 3. The 1[st] defendant fraudulently and in collusion with its close associates framed a by-law and clandestinely got it registered under the Societies Registration Act 1881. The 1st defendant on the strength of the by-law made several attempts to control the management of the committee. The committee obtained registration No.238/1983 on the files of the District Registrar Cannanore. There were several complaints against the management of the committee and finally all the disputes were settled and a new by-law was framed and got registered as No.342/1993. The present committee formed by the 1[st] defendant is not in existence and the plaintiff committee authorised the plaintiff to the President and Secretary to file a suit as per the resolution. While the 1[st] defendant was acting as 8 AS 198/1999 the president of the earlier committee, plaint A-schedule properties consisting of 6 items were purchased by the committee through registered documents. The consideration was paid out of the funds of the plaintiff committee, and the said fact was specifically referred to in the sale deeds. The properties were purchased for the benefit and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the 1[st] defendant was only representing the plaintiff in the sale deeds in his official capacity. He has only the right to keep possession and manage the properties on behalf of the plaintiff and has not acquired any independent right, title or possession thereof. He is bound to hand over the possession and management of the said items to the succeeding committee who is the plaintiff in the suit. 4. Though the first defendant vacated the office of the president-ship in 1993, he is still keeping illegal possession of the properties in the schedule and appropriating the income. As 9 AS 198/1999 per Sections 36(A) and Section 55 of the Wakf Act, prior sanction of the Wakf Board is necessary for registering documents in respect of wakf properties. The properties detailed in the A-schedule are wakf properties and the first defendant has no manner of right to create documents that are void _ab-initio_ . Therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of possession along with future mesne profits. A declaration is also sought, that plaint A-schedule properties belong to the plaintiff as wakf properties. 5. The first defendant has filed a separate written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. Plaint A- schedule properties were never registered as wakf properties of Kalikkadavu Badar Mosque and Madrasuthul Hameedia, which was the earlier managing committee registered under the Kerala wakf Board. Only two items of properties having an extent of 25 cents in R.S. No.135/3 and 42 cents in R.S. 10 AS 198/1999 No.136/1 of Padne Village alone were registered as wakf properties. In 1981, Padne Kallikkadavu Nusruthul Islam Juma-ath Committee got registered under the Societies Registration Act and a by-law was registered as No.238/83. The first defendant was the President and one Mohammadali Haji was the Secretary. The committee was never registered before the Kerala Wakf Board. Plaint A-schedule properties were acquired by the said committee and subsequently disposed of as per the decision of the committee for meeting the expenses of management of Hameedia madrassa as well as the Juma-ath mosque. There were disputes between the Muslim community and finally all the disputes were settled in a suit filed before the Munsiff's Court as O.S.No.96/90 against defendant Nos.1, 3 and 2 others to declare 25 cents of property in R.S. No.135/3 part is wakf property. Another suit was also filed seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the wakf properties of the committee. The 11 AS 198/1999 entire dispute has been compromised and an agreement was drawn among the parties in view of the compromise decree, the committee registered vide No.238/83 had been dissolved and a new committee had been registered as No.342/93. The acquisition of A-schedule properties and its disposal by an earlier committee cannot be challenged by the subsequent committee which is plaintiff. The plaint A- scheduled properties were never transferred to the plaintiff's committee and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant Nos.2 to 11 adopted the contentions of the 1[st] defendant and the 12[th] defendant filed a separate written statement contending that two items referred by the 1[st] defendant alone were registered as wakf properties and plaint A-scheduled properties were never registered as wakf properties. 12 AS 198/1999 7. The Trial Court raised five issues and the evidence consisted of oral evidence of PW1, DW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A24 and B1 to B7. 8. The Trial Court, after an elaborate consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, dismissed the suit holding that plaint A-schedule properties had never acquired the characteristics of a wakf property and therefore, the question of obtaining permission from the Wakf Board to sell the same does not arise for determination. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No.12 of 97, this first appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 9. Heard Sri.K R Avinash for the appellant and Sri. Alias M Cherian for the respondents. 10. The counsel for the appellant argued that the first defendant had formed a committee in 1961 and he was elected as the president and the committee was registered as No.238 of 13 AS 198/1999 83. The properties purchased by the committee scheduled as A-schedule were with the funds of the plaintiff committee and it was subsequently alienated without obtaining prior sanction of the wakf Board and therefore the said transactions are void. Section 51 of the Wakf Act 1995 and Section 36 of the Wakf Act 1954, which were in force at that time require prior sanction of the Wakf Board for alienation. The properties scheduled as A-schedule properties are wakf properties, but it was not registered with the Wakf Board. Even though the property was not registered with the Wakf Board, the properties are Wakf properties by the user. At the time of the original registration of the committee, two items of properties were registered with the Wakf Board. The plaint A- schedule properties were purchased during the period 1983 to 1985, and it was incumbent upon the first defendant to register all the properties acquired by the committee with the funds of the Jama-ath as wakf properties with the Kerala Wakf Board, but 14 AS 198/1999 the first defendant failed to do so. Even if it is not registered by user, the properties were transformed into wakf properties. Once the properties have attained the status of wakf properties, the properties cannot be alienated by any committee member without obtaining sanction from the Wakf Board. After a new committee came into power on the basis of compromise in O.S.No.96/1990, the new committee got registered as Reg.No.342/1993 and a decision was taken by the committee as per Ext.A24 dated 24/10/1996 to file present suit to recover the properties which have been transferred by the 1[st] defendant fraudulently without obtaining sanction from the Wakf Board as contemplated under the Wakf Act. He further argued that when DW1 was examined, he admitted in cross examination that plaint A-schedule properties have been acquired by the contribution made by the members of the Muslim community and therefore, the properties had acquired the status of a wakf. 15 AS 198/1999 11. He also raised a contention that the Sub Court, Hosdurg did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and only the Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act 1995 alone has jurisdiction to deal with such a case. He relied on Section 85 of the Wakf Act 1995 and argued that there is a bar of jurisdiction for the civil court to entertain the suit in respect of any dispute, question or other matters relating to any Wakf property and the Tribunal alone had the jurisdiction, and therefore the matter has to be sent to the Wakf Tribunal for adjudicating the issue whether plaint A-scheduled properties are wakf properties or not. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari [(2022) 4 SCC 414],** for the proposition that the Wakf Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction to determine any dispute, question or any matter relating to wakf and wakf properties. 16 AS 198/1999 12. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Civil Court had the original jurisdiction to try the present case. His argument is that the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force in 1995 but the Tribunals to be constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act and the Rules were framed only subsequently. The Kerala Wakf Rules came into force on 6.9.1996, and the first Wakf Tribunal was constituted in the state of Kerala with effect from 08.12.1998. Therefore, the suit filed in 1997 and disposed of on 22.9.1998, was before the establishment of the Wakf Tribunal and therefore, had the jurisdiction to deal with the issue. He relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in **Magnum Developers and** **Others v. Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust and another (2016 KHC 2096)** and argued that so long as the Wakf Tribunal is not constituted in terms of amended section 83(4) of the Act notwithstanding section 85 the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Till such time the Tribunal is 17 AS 198/1999 constituted in terms of the amended section 83(4) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sub Judge is in order and with jurisdiction. 13. Ext.A3 is the proceedings of the Kerala State Wakf Board dated 3.5.1995 whereby it was decided to accept the byelaw of the plaintiff committee registered as No.342 of 1993. Ext.A20 is the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC by parties in O.S.No.41 of 1990 as I.A No.577 of 1993. By the said compromise it was decreed that the suit property in O.S.41 of 1990 is a wakf property of the plaintiff and the society registered under the Societies Registration Act as No.238 of 1983 was dissolved as per the Resolution passed by the general body. As per Ext.A22 the compromise was recorded and the judgment was passed on 30.10.1993 recording the compromise. Ext.B2 is produced on the side of the defendants which is an agreement between Padane 18 AS 198/1999 Kalikkadavu Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath office bearers and Padane Kalikkadavu Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath Committee in respect of disputes between them. As per the said agreement, the parties agreed that 42 cents in Re.sy 136/1 and 25 cents in Re.sy 135/3 shall be transferred to new committee. The second clause is in relation to the transfer effected in respect of properties in Re.sy.141/2B, 140/5 140/6, 150/1 and 150/2 as valid. Therefore the plaintiff does not have a cause of action to file the present suit in view of the agreement executed as Ext.B2 and the judgment of the Sub Judge dated 30.10.1993 in O.S.No.41 of 1990. 14. The cause of action for filing the suit is Ext.A24 which is a decision taken by the plaintiff committee on 24.10.1996 much after the compromise decree in O.S.No. 41 of 1990. The alleged transaction by the first defendant is between 1983 and 1985. O.S.No.41 of 1990 is filed much after the above 19 AS 198/1999 transactions. The alleged transactions made by the first defendant were not a subject matter in the suit which is compromised. Therefore the suit is correctly dismissed by the learned Judge. 15. The present suit O.S.No.12 of 1997 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession. The allegation against the 1[st] defendant was that while acting as the president of the earlier committee plaint A schedule consisting of 6 items was purchased by the committee with the funds of the plaintiff committee and subsequently sold without obtaining the sanction from the Wakf board as the said properties are wakf properties. The contention of the 1[st] defendant is that in 1983, A schedule properties were not registered with the Waqf board as they were acquired by the committee registered in 1983 as Reg.No.238 of 1983 by Padane Kalikkadavu Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath committee. The original Madrassul Hamidia which 20 AS 198/1999 was the earlier management committee registered under the Kerala state wakf board had only 2 items of properties having an extent of 25 cents in Re sy. 135/3 and 42 cents in Re.sy 136/1 of Padanne village. The committee which was registered in 1983 had an independent existence and the properties purchased by the committee are not waqf properties and therefore, the registration was not obtained. O.S. 41/1990 and 245/92 were filed for setting aside the decree passed by Munsiff’s Court, Hosdurg in O.S. No.248/88 and to cancel a registered document marked as Ext.A19 dated 1.2.1989. Ext.A4 to A9 are the properties purchased by the committee headed by the first defendant and subsequently sold in the year 1989. So the transaction of buying and selling were between 1983 and 1985. O.S. 41 of 1990 was filed after the alleged alienation. It is to be noted that the plaintiff in O.S. No.41 of 1990 is the same plaintiff in the present case. The cause of action in the said suit is extracted below: 21 AS 198/1999 “The cause of action for the suit arose on and since 2.2.1989 when the plaintiffs came to know of the suit in OS 248/1988 of Munsiff court and document No.332/1989 and about mention of the society No.238/1983 in document No.2766/1983 at Padane village, Hosdurg taluk (where the suit property is situate) within the jurisdiction of this court. “ Thus, it can be seen that the purchase and alienation made by the 1[st] defendant as President of a society by name Padane Kalikkadavu Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath committee was not challenged in the suit and it was never a subject matter. But from Ext.B2 it can be seen that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and a rival committee, and an agreement was executed on 10.6.1993 wherein it is specifically detailed that the committee registered as No.238/1983 holding the wakf 22 AS 198/1999 property to the extent of 42 cents in Re.sy. 136/1 and 25 cents Re.sy.No.135/3 are transferred to the new committee and that the alienation effected by the earlier committee has been unconditionally accepted as valid. It is on the basis of the said agreement the suit was compromised as per Ext.A21 and a compromise decree was passed as Ext.B2. The decision to file the suit is on the basis of Ext.A24. The decision taken by the plaintiff committee on 24.10.1996 to be précised after 3 years of compromise decree. Therefore the present suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, which prescribes that every suit shall include the entire claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring his suit within the jurisdiction of any court and if the plaintiff omits to sue and intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. 23 AS 198/1999 16. It is in evidence before the court below that the registered committee had acquired the properties in the name of the committee and the properties not being waqf properties could be sold to 3[rd] parties by the committee. The 12[th] defendant has filed the written statement that as per the records of Wakf board the muthawalli of the Wakf was Madrassul Hameediya managing committee and no society by name Padane Kalikkadavu Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath committee registered as No.238/83 under the registration of the societies registration Act was registered with the wakf board. The plaint A schedule properties were never properties as wakf properties at any point of time. The acquisition and alienation done by the committee headed by the 1[st] defendant was not informed to the board and since the society was not registered with the Board, they are not liable to inform the Board regarding the purchase as well as disposal. The contention taken by the plaintiff was that though the properties purchased by the committee during 24 AS 198/1999 1983 could be treated as waqf property due to long user. But there is absolutely no evidence to treat the properties as wakf property even the 12[th] defendant in their written statement has categorically submitted that the properties were never registered with the wakf board as wakf properties, since the committee which purchased the properties were not registered with the Board. A registered committee under the Societies Registration Act is competent to purchase and dispose of the properties according to the decisions of the managing committee. As mentioned earlier the purchase and disposal of properties by the committee headed by the 1[st] defendant was ratified and accepted by the plaintiff through Ext.B2 and it was made clear that the 2 properties having an extent of 25 cents and 42 cents are only the wakf properties of the plaintiff. In view of Ext.Nos.A20, A22, B2 and analysing the oral evidence of PW1 and DW1, I am of the considered opinion 25 AS 198/1999 that the learned Sub Judge is fully justified in dismissing the suit. Therefore the appeal fails and it is dismissed. **==> picture [27 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_