Dismissed

Mannakkal Jumath Palli Committee v. v.P.Muhammed @ Manutty

Kerala HC6 Feb 2007CRP/913/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This divorce-style revision petition challenged the order of the Wakf Tribunal allowing an application for the production of Wakf accounts. The High Court held the Tribunal was correct as the eligibility of plaintiffs to be 'persons interested' is a matter for trial, finding no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 06.02.2007 dismissing the civil revision petition and the application to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

Mannakkal Jumath Palli Committee Vs v.P.Muhammed @ Manutty — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 17TH MAGHA 1928

¶7

CRP.No. 913 of 2005(H)

¶8

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2005 IN IA. 431 /2005 IN

¶10

OS.39/2005 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶11

REVN. PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NOS. 1 TO 4:

¶12

¶13

MANAKKAL JUMATHPALLI COMMITTEE,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.ABOOBACKER MASTER, S/O.MUHAMMED, VADAKKUMBRAM AMSOM,

¶15

MAVANDIYOOR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.

¶16

P.ABOOBACKER MASTER, S/O.MUHAMMED, SECRETARY, MOONNAKKAL JUMATH PALLI COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMBRAM AMSOM, MAVANDIYOOR DESOM,

¶17

TIRUR TALUK.

¶18

V.P.SUBAIR, S/O.ALIYAMUTTY, PRESIDENT, MOONNAKKAL JUMATH PALLI COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMBRAM AMSOM, MAVANDIYOOR DESOM,

¶19

TIRUR TALUK.

¶20

V.P.SADAKKATHULLA, S/O. KUNHIMARAKKAR, TREASURER, MOONNAKKAL JUMATH PALLI COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMBRAM AMSOM, MAVANDIYOOR DESOM,

¶21

TIRUR TALUK.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

¶23

ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD

¶24

CRP.No. 913 of 2005(H)

¶25

¶26

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT NO.5:

¶27

¶28

V.P. MUHAMMED ALIAS MANUTTY. S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, MUTHAVALLI AND KARANAVAR, MOONNAKKAL JUMATH PALLI COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMBRAM AMSOM, MAVANDIYOOR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.

¶29

V.P. JAMAL MOHAMMED, S/O. HURIAR KUTTY ALIAS BAPU, VADAKUMPURAM AMSOM, MAVANDIYOOR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.

¶30

KERALA WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

¶31

R1 AND R2 BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)

¶32

ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶33

R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD

¶34

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

ORDER ON I.A. NO. 286 OF 2007 IN C.R.P.NO. 913 OF 2005

¶36

DISMISSED.

¶37

06.02.2007

¶38

SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶39

/true copy/

¶40

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶41

KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ.

¶42

C.R.P. No. 913 OF 2005 ................................................................................... Dated this the 6^th February, 2007

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

Sankaran, J:

¶45

Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 39 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode filed I.A.No. 431 of 2005 for an order directing the defendants to produce the accounts and minutes in respect of the Wakf. The Tribunal allowed the application by the order impugned in this revision.

¶46

Defendants Nos.1 to 4 in the suit challenge the order of the Tribunal. It is contended that the suit itself is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not members of the Mahal and that they are not persons interested in the Wakf. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that it is clearly stated in paragraph '7' of the plaint that the first plaintiff is the present Muthavally of the Wakf. It is also stated that the second plaintiff is the son of late Hurair Kutty , who was the Muthavally

¶47

¶48

C.R.P. No. 913 OF 2005

¶49

approved by the Wakf Board earlier.

¶50

The question as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit or whether they are persons interested in the Wakf and whether the first plaintiff is the Muthavally of the Wakf, are all matters to be considered at the time of trial. The prayer in the present application is only for a direction to produce documents which are admittedly in the possession of the respondents in the application. The Tribunal, in our view, rightly allowed the application. No grounds are made out for interference under section 83(9) of the Wakf Act. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order or proceedings.

¶51

Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No

¶52

order as to costs.

¶53

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶54

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶55

Mannakkal Jumath Palli Committee v. v.P.Muhammed @ Manutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannakkal Jumath Palli Committee v. v.P.Muhammed @ Manutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Saraswathy

T.K.Radhakrishnan Vs Canara Bank

Satheesan Vs Kunhikali

State of Kerala Vs Divakaran,S/O.Kochukuttan

State of Kerala Vs Pooyammal

State of Kerala Vs Malayithodi Babu