Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Thayyil Kunhimohammed Haji vs Darul Huda Islamic Academy on 18 December, 2007

Pookkadan Moideenkutty vs Kuttiyali on 14 July, 2009

In Kunhimohammed Haji v. Darul Huda Islamic Academy {2008 (1) KLT 957} the Court took the view that the functions of registration of property as wakf property is that of the Board and it has a duty to decide the question as to whether the property is wakf property or not. It is for the Board to decide the question in the WPC 21399/2008 -24- first instance and the Tribunal can be called upon to adjudicate on the question after the decision is taken by the Board on the disputed question it was held. The Court also took the view that the expression 'any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf appearing under S.83 (2) has to be given a restricted meaning in its application as far as the disputes or questions under Ss. 6, 7 and S.40. Therefore, the Court took the view that the precondition for invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Sec.6 or Sec.7 is the presence of property as wakf property in the list of Wakfs published by the Wakf Board under Section 5. We do not see how the said decision can advance the case of the petitioner in the facts of this case.
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - K Joseph - Full Document

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

6. The counsel for the revision petitioner has raised a contention that the prayer in the suit filed by the respondents though worded as recovery of possession is in fact for removing the revision petitioners from the property on the ground that they are not authorised to remain in possession, which comes within the meaning of the term encroachment. It is contended that such a suit is not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal. He contends that Section 54 of the Wakf Act confers jurisdiction on the Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter refered to as CEO) of the Board to determine such disputes. According to him, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is akin to an appellate jurisdiction and the same is to be exercised after a definite finding has been entered into by the CEO. The Counsel submits that if the above contention finds favour with this Court, there is no necessity to CRP Nos.262/2007 & 267/2007 -15- go into the merits of the contentions of the parties. Reliance is placed on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram vs Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported in [(2010) 8 SCC 726] and M.P.Wakf Board vs Subhan Shah and others reported in [(2006) 10 SCC 696], that of a Full Bench of this Court in Alappuzha Muhiyideen Masjid Association and others vs Abdulkhader and others reported in [2011(1) KHC 578], that of a Division Bench of this Court in Thayyil Kunhimohammed Haji and others vs Darul Huda Islamic Academy and others reported in [2008(1) KHC 396] and that of a Single Judge of this Court in Abdul Rahiman Musaliar vs Muhammed Sahib reported in [2002(3) KLT 742].
Kerala High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

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

This Court in the decision reported in Kunhimohammed Haji v. Darul Huda Islamic Academy, 2008(1) K.L.T. 957 examined similar provisions in the Wakf Act and held that the function of registration of a property as Wakf property, being that of the W.P.(C)NO.32658/2007 7 Board and since it is the duty of the Board in the process to decide a question as to whether a property is Wakf or not, it is for the Board to consider and decide the question at the first instance. The Tribunal can be called upon only to adjudicate on and after the decision taken by the Board on the disputed question.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Harun-Ul-Rashid - Full Document

Dr. Nisar Ahmed vs Govt Of Nct on 13 August, 2014

4. During the course of arguments, it is stated by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit is maintainable and in support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on AIR 2008 (NOC) 1178 (KER.), Thayyil Kunhimohammed Haji and others Vs. Darul Huda Islamic Academy but, perusal of the judgment as relied by the plaintiff reveals that in the same, it was mentioned that enlistment of property U/s 5 of Waqf Act and registration U/s 40 (1) by Waqf Board are pre­ condition for invoking the jurisdiction of tribunal, but perusal of the said case further reveals that the jurisdiction for deciding the question of enlistment and registration was given to the Waqf Board and consequently the same does not give the jurisdiction to Civil Court to decide the said questions.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1