Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (2.00 seconds)
Documents citing Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyapura ... vs Pattakkal Cheriyakoya And Ors. on 13 June, 2003

Pookkadan Moideenkutty vs Kuttiyali on 14 July, 2009

" As far as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, the law is well settled by a Bench decision of this Court in Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya (2003 (3) KLT 32) that "The words any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property under S.85 are wide enough to take in within its sweep not only matters which are specifically conferred on the Tribunal by the various provisions of the Act but also any dispute, question or any other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property since those powers have also been conferred on the Tribunal by the Wakf Act itself. On examining the scheme of the Act and various provisions we are of the view that the intention of the Legislature is to resolve all disputes by one machinery and forum provided in the Act itself, that is, the Wakf Tribunal and not by the Civil Courts it the State."
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - K Joseph - Full Document

M.A.Muhammed Kunju vs Biju on 4 April, 2008

The principles stated by the Division Bench in Pookoya Haju v. Cheriyakoya, 2003(3)K.L.T. 32 was followed in the decision reported in Madeena Masjid v. Kerala Jama Ath Islami Hind, 2007(3) K.L.T. 800. The question before this Court in the aforesaid cases was whether on a dispute on Wakf property, the exclusive jurisdiction is on the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act or whether the civil court has got any jurisdiction over the matter. This Court held that that a joint reading of Sections 83, 85 and 87 of the Act would clearly show that the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Wakf and Wakf property or other matters which are to be determined by the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Harun-Ul-Rashid - Full Document

M.M. Abdulla Kutty vs M. Abdulla Kutty Haji on 28 May, 2024

The Division Bench noticed that, as far as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, the law is well settled by a Bench decision in Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya [2003 (3) KLT 32] that the words any dispute, question or other matters relating to Waqf or Waqf property under Section 85 of the Waqf Act are wide enough to take in within its sweep not only matters which are specifically conferred on the Tribunal by the various provisions of the Act, but also any dispute, question or any other matter relating to any Waqf or Waqf property since those powers have also been conferred on 8 CRP No.1215 of 2002 the Tribunal by the Waqf Act itself. On examining the scheme of the Act and various provisions, the Division Bench found that the intention of the Legislature is to resolve all disputes by one machinery and forum provided in the Act itself, i.e., the Waqf Tribunal and not by the Civil Courts in the State.
Kerala High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Muthawalli vs Kerala Jama Ath Islami Hind on 5 July, 2007

As far as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, the law is well settled by a bench decision of this Court in Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya (2003(3) KLT 32) that "The words any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property CRP NO.374/07 4 under S.85 are wide enough to take in within its sweep not only matters which are specifically conferred on the Tribunal by the various provisions of the Act but also any dispute, question or any other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property since those powers have also been conferred on the Tribunal by the Wakf Act itself. On examining the scheme of the Act and various provisions we are of the view that the intention of the Legislature is to resolve all disputes by one machinery and forum provided in the Act itself, that is, the Wakf Tribunal and not by the Civil Courts in the State".
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muthawalli vs Kerala Jama Ath Islami Hind on 5 July, 2007

As far as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, the law is well settled by a bench decision of this Court in Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya (2003(3) KLT 32) that "The words any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property CRP NO.374/07 4 under S.85 are wide enough to take in within its sweep not only matters which are specifically conferred on the Tribunal by the various provisions of the Act but also any dispute, question or any other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property since those powers have also been conferred on the Tribunal by the Wakf Act itself. On examining the scheme of the Act and various provisions we are of the view that the intention of the Legislature is to resolve all disputes by one machinery and forum provided in the Act itself, that is, the Wakf Tribunal and not by the Civil Courts in the State".
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thayyil Kunhimohammed Haji vs Darul Huda Islamic Academy on 18 December, 2007

But the crucial issue is what is the disputed question in this case. No doubt under Section 83 any muthawalli or a person interested in a Wakf or any person aggrieved by an order made under the Act or Rules is entitled to approach the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf as held by this Court in Pookoya Haji's case (supra) and followed in Madeena Masjid's case (supra). But Section 6 as well C.R.P NO.564/2005 -:12:- as Section 7 specially and specifically provide for raising a dispute before the Tribunal for deciding a question as to whether enlistment of property as Wakf property is correct or not or whether a Wakf is Sunni or Shia. Actually there is no much difference between the procedure under Section 6 or Section 7. The differentiating factor is only that Section 7 deals exclusively with post 1995 Wakf Act scenario. A reading of Section 6 or Section 7 with Section 83 would show that the 'question' referred to in Section 83 in the background of Section 6 or Section 7 is a question only of a dispute regarding enlistment of a property as Wakf, or as Sunni Wakf or Shia Wakf.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - K Joseph - Full Document

K.P.Sebastian vs Darussalam Madrassa Committee on 3 February, 2009

issues were decided as a preliminary point as per the order in I.A.No.458 of 2002 and was held that this is a wakf dispute coming under Section 85 of the Wakf Act. The petitioner herein challenged the said decision before this Court in C.R.P.No.2599 of 2002 and following the decision in Pookoya Haji V. Cheriyakoya [2003(3) KLT 32], this Court held that the Tribunal can decide any question with regard to wakf and the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed thus finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 become final.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

14. The correctness of the decision in Pookoya Haji (supra) had also been doubted and referred to a Full Bench and the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in Alappuzha Muhiyudeen Masjid Association (supra) held that the decision in Pookoya Haji (supra) has been overruled in Gobindram (supra). The Full Bench however, also considered the question whether the Tribunal has original jurisdiction to frame a scheme for management of wakfs and held that the appellate authority has only appellate jurisdiction and that the concept of the original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction vesting in one and the same person offends the fundamental CRP Nos.262/2007 & 267/2007 -28- rules of judicial procedure. The Full Bench held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for framing a scheme.
Kerala High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

M.Ali Hussain vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 17 December, 2008

15. But interestingly, in another decision in Madeena Masjid Vs. Kerala Jamaath Islami Hind {2007 (3) KLT 800}, another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (to which one of the learned Judges who was a party to the decision in Thorayil Juma Masjid case was also a party) held that the law on the point of jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunals was well settled by the Division Bench decision in Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyapura Pookoya Haji case {2003 (3) KLT 32}. In other words, the latter Division Bench quoted with approval the view taken by the earlier Division Bench that the words "any dispute, question or other matters" appearing in Section 83 are wide enough to include within its sweep not only the matters specifically conferred on the Tribunal, but also any other dispute, question or matter.
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 7 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Haryana Wakf Board vs Abdul Gafoor S/O Shri Maqbool on 25 September, 2009

He also placed reliance on Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 474 Kerala High Court (DB), M. Bikshapathi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 212 Andhra Pradesh High Court (DB), and Jagdish Rai v. Manohar Lal and others, 2007(2) RCR, 50, Punjab & Haryana High Court, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next