Dismissed

Jalaudeen v. Kuttamala Chirayakkodu Muslim Jama-Ath

Kerala HC11 Aug 2015CRP(WAKF)/465/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners seeking marriage certificate from a Jama-ath challenged an interlocutory order. The Court declined to interfere under the Wakf Act as no urgency was found to decide the matrimonial issues via interlocutory application. The suit remains for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; Tribunal directed to expedite final disposal of the suit regarding the marriage issue.

Jalaudeen Vs Kuttamala Chirayakkodu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/20TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

CRP(WAKF).No. 465 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.NO.184/2015 IN OS 9/2014 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 23-07-2015

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

¶8

1. JALALUDEEN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.HAJI MUHAMMED HANEEFA, MUSHTHAK MANZIL, KUTTAMALA, VAZHACHIL DESOM, VAZHACHIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. MAHEENKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.HAJI MUHAMMED HANEEFA, MUSHTHAK MANZIL, KUTTAMALA, VAZHACHIL DESOM, VAZHACHIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. MYTHEEN KANNU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.HAJI MUHAMMED HANEEFA, MUSHTHAK MANZIL, KUTTAMALA, VAZHACHIL DESOM, VAZHACHIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):/COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS

¶13

1. KUTTAMALA CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH VAZHACHIL DESOM, VAZHACHIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS JAMA-ATH SECRETARY, M.S.SHAN

¶14

AGED 27 YEARS, KUTTAMALA P.O., CHIRAYAKKODU, PIN-695 505.

¶15

2. MAHEENKUTTY PRESIDENT CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM, VAZHACHIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.

¶16

CRPWK465/15

¶17

3.	JALAL, AGED 63 YEAR VICE PRESIDENT CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM VAZHACHIL VILLAGE,	S JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.
4.	SULFIKER, AGED 32 Y JOINT SECRETARY CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM VAZHACHIL VILLAGE,	EARS JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.
5.	SAIDH, AGED 43 YEAR TREASURER CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM VAZHACHIL VILLAGE,	S JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.
6.	NIJAM, AGED 32 YEAR EXECUTIVE MEMBER CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM VAZHACHIL VILLAGE,	S JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.
7.	ASHRAF, AGED 28 YEA EXECUTIVE MEMBER	RS
	CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM VAZHACHIL VILLAGE,	JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.
8.	SHAJEER KHAN, AGED EXECUTIVE MEMBER CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM VAZHACHIL VILLAGE,	40 YEARS JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.
9.	HAKKIM, AGED 52 YEA EXECUTIVE MEMBER	RS
	CHIRAYAKKODU MUSLIM	JAMA-ATH, VAZHACHIL DESOM
	VAZHACHIL VILLAGE,	THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 505.

¶18

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & SUNIL THOMAS, JJ.

¶20

CRP (Wakf) No.465 of 2015

¶21

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2015.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶24

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs.

¶25

2.Petitioners are members of the first respondent Jama-ath.

¶26

They insist that the marriage of the second petitioner's daughter be carried out with the involvement of the office bearers of the first respondent and that marriage certificate has to be issued by that Jama-ath. The first respondent contested the interlocutory application pleading that the petitioners were acting against the interest of the first respondent. More so because, they are also members of another Jama-ath, namely Poozhanad Jama-ath. The first respondent Jama-ath, therefore, issued notice to the petitioners that if they intend to continue as the members of the first respondent Jama-ath, they have to get themselves removed from the rolls of the Poozhanad Jama-ath and have to produce certificate to that

¶27

:2:

¶28

CRPWK465/15

¶29

effect. The petitioners did not respond to that. The suit from which this matter arises was filed about 2½ months after that action. The learned Wakf Tribunal was, therefore, justified in taking the view that issues raised for consideration cannot be answered in an interlocutory application and there is no urgency to have the matter decided through an interlocutory application. Having considered the materials, copies of which are shown to us at our request by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and taking into consideration the views expressed in the impugned order, we do not find our way to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and thereby to upset the impugned order. This revision petition, therefore, fails.

¶30

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners thereupon

¶31

made a request that the Tribunal may be directed to expedite final disposal of the suit, since the marriage of the daughter of the second petitioner is fixed to be on 4^th October, 2015. We record this request. The learned Tribunal will list the matter for expeditious consideration and disposal, having regard to

¶32

CRPWK465/15

¶33

:3:

¶34

the aforesaid request of the revision petitioners.

¶35

In the result, subject to what is stated in the immediate preceding paragraph, this revision petition is dismissed clarifying that the suit will be decided untrammelled by anything stated in the order impugned in this revision petition.

¶36

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶37

(SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE)

¶38

Jalaudeen v. Kuttamala Chirayakkodu Muslim Jama-Ath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalaudeen v. Kuttamala Chirayakkodu Muslim Jama-Ath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur Vs the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit

T.D. Antony Vs K.A Raveendra

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Joint Director, Local Fund Audit

C.G.Radhakrishnan Vs M/S.Abdul Sathar Hajee Moosa Sait

Unnikrishnan Vs Vinodkumar

Sheela Vs Shibu