Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Muthulakshmi Ammal vs Seethimarakkarakath Alikoya Wakf on 6 December, 2006

Darul Huda Masjid Mahallu Committee vs Unknown on 6 November, 2020

7. The Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the question relating to CRP Nos.262/2007 & 267/2007 -16- maintainability is raised for the first time before this Court and that no such contention was taken either before the Wakf Tribunal or even in the Memorandum of Revision before this Court. She further submits that even the pleadings in the case does not specifically raise such an issue. It is contended that such a contention ought not to be entertained at this stage after the passage of so many years. On merits of the contention, she contends that the suit is not one for removal of encroachment under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, so as to necessitate a proceeding before the CEO. According to her, the suit is one of recovery of possession simpliciter and the respondents have no case that the revision petitioners are encroachers on the land. According to her, the relief is sought for only on the basis of the recitals in the Wakf deed which specifically says that the right to manage shall come vested in the respondents, on the happening of the event contemplated in the Wakf, that is, the Wakif leaving behind no successors. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma CRP Nos.262/2007 & 267/2007 -17- Begum and another reported in [2010(4) KLT 765], Punjab Wakf Board vs Pritpal Singh and another in Civil Appeal No. 8194 of 2013, Rajasthan Wakf Board v. Devki Nandan Pathak and others reported in [(2017)14 SCC 561], and Division Bench decisions of this Court in Norman Printing Bureau, Kozhikode v. P.M.Mammu Haji and another reported in [2013(3)KHC 798], Muthulakshmi Ammal v. Seethimarakkarakath Alikoya Wakf & another reported in [2016 (3) KLJ 312] and Kerala State Wakf Board v. Rajesh reported in [2016 (3) KLT 164] to contend that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession. The Senior Counsel submits that a suit for possession and mesne profits is different from a suit for eviction of encroachers.
Kerala High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Kunhimoideen K vs A.P.Aboobacker Musliyar on 23 November, 2020

Muthulakshmi (supra) was rendered in a case relating to eviction of a tenant and the Division Bench was dealing with a situation where the Waqf Tribunal which did not earlier have jurisdiction, subsequently got jurisdiction by way of an amendment of the Wakf Act, pending the appellate proceedings. In the above circumstances, the Court noted that even if the order impugned is set aside for want of jurisdiction, fresh proceedings will have to be initiated in the very same forum CRP(WAKF).No.68 OF 2019 7 over again. This was found to be a hyper-technical exercise. The above decision will not in any way help the cause of the respondents, since both prior and after the amendment of the Wakf Act in 2013, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction. Further though both parties claim it to be wakf, admittedly it is not registered with the Board. Even a decision as to whether a property is a wakf or not can be agitated before the Tribunal under Sections 6 or 7 of the Act, if the same is included in the list of Auqafs. We hence hold that the Waqf Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, O.S.No.205 of 2019.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document
1