Summary
The Court held that the pleaded suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction over admitted waqf property belonged before the Waqf Tribunal. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 83 was not confined to disputes about whether property was waqf property or whether a waqf was Shia or Sunni. The plaintiff’s disputed status as a beneficiary also required determination by the Tribunal. The High Court judgment permitting the civil suit was set aside, with return of the plaint for presentation to the Tribunal rather than final rejection of the claim.
Issues
- Whether a civil court could entertain this injunction suit concerning admittedly waqf property under the statutory scheme applicable to the proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Sections 83(1), 83(5) and 85, Waqf Act, 1995The Tribunal’s jurisdiction covered disputes relating to waqf property, including the present injunction claim; its civil-court powers supported injunctive relief. (¶¶ 16, 32, 33, 34, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56)
- Sections 6 and 7, Waqf Act, 1995These provisions dealt with particular survey-related questions and did not exhaust or restrict the wider jurisdiction conferred by Section 83. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 55)
- Sections 68(6), 86, 90 and 93, Waqf Act, 1995The statutory scheme retained civil-court roles in specified matters, qualifying any suggestion of an absolute exclusion of civil jurisdiction. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 44, 45)
Held
- Sections 6 and 7 address specified questions connected with the survey and list of waqfs. Their limited subjects cannot be imported into Section 83 to deny the Tribunal jurisdiction merely because both parties admit that property is waqf property. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 52, 53, 55)
- Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee supported Tribunal jurisdiction over perpetual injunction suits. Ramesh Gobindram, concerning eviction, could not defeat the present claim before the Tribunal. The Court also noted that the 2013 amendment removed the basis of its restrictive eviction ruling; the present injunction suit was within the broader language even before that amendment. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
- The civil-jurisdiction bar was not universal: the Act itself preserved specified civil-court functions and remedies. Those exceptions did not place this pleaded injunction suit before the civil court. (¶¶ 23, 27, 44, 45, 56)
- Apart from the admitted waqf character of the land, the plaintiff’s claimed beneficiary status was contested. That question also required Tribunal adjudication. The plaint was to be returned for presentation to the competent Tribunal, which would proceed from framing issues because pleadings were complete. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 56, 57)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside. Trial court directed to return the plaint for presentation to the jurisdictional Waqf Tribunal, which must proceed from framing issues and dispose of the suit within six months. No costs.