Disposed

Niramarathur Korangath Juma Masjid v. Muhammed Kutty @ Mamu

Kerala HC24 May 2016CRP/159/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging a Wakf Tribunal judgment. The court declined to examine merits as the plaintiff had died during pendency, leaving the underlying suit's personal remedy moot without deciding substitution claims.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the revision petition was disposed of without prejudice to other contentions.

Niramarathur Korangath Juma Masjid Vs Muhammed Kutty @ Mamu — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

C.R.P.No.159 of 2009

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 40/2006 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 1.12.08

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶9

NIRAMARATHUR KORANGATH JUMA MASJID PALLI MUTHAVALLI MADAMPATTU HAMEED HAJEE, S/O., MADAMPAT MUHAMMED, NIRAMARATHUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

MUHAMMED KUTTY @ MAMU, S/O. CHARATH KUNHIBAVA, NIRAMARATHUR AMSOM DESOM,,

¶13

TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶14

KERALA WAKF BOARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

CHARATH KOYA, S/O.KLUNHIBAVA, NIRAMARATHUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK,, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶16

ALAVI, S/O.MANJILAMPARAMBATH,KUNHAHAMMEDKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶17

MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.MADAMPATT KOYAKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶18

IBRAHIMKUTTY HAJI, S/O.CHARATH MUHAMMED, DO. DO. (Died) (The non impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased 6^th respondent is recorded at the risk of the petitioner as per order dated 28.3.2016 vide memo bearing cg No.1007/16)

¶19

CHERIYABARA, S/O KALAKKALAKATH MUHAMMEDKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶20

ALIKUTTY, S/O.KUNHIKANDIYIL KUTTAKKIL, MAMMED, DO. DO.

¶21

ABDUL SALAM, S/O.KOYAKUNHIYAKATH VADAKKE, OTTIYIL KOYAKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶22

MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ MANU, S/O.KALAMBAKATH, KUNHIMUHAMMED, DO. DO.

¶23

KUNHOTHI, S/O.MADAMPAT KUNHAMMED, DO. DO.

¶24

KALANTHAN HAJI, S/O.MANATH ALAVI, DO. DO.

¶25

K.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, S/O. KALAKKALAKATH KUNHI MOHAMMED, DO. DO.

¶26

KUNHI MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O MADAMPAT KUNHALI, DO. DO.

¶27

ABOOBACKER, S/O.UNIKOT PARAMBIL ENIKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶28

MOHAMMED BASHEER @ RAFEEQUE, S/O. MADAMPAT KUNHEEN, DO. DO.

¶29

MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/o MADAMPAT SAIDALAVI, DO. DO.

¶30

RAFEEQUE, S/O.CHARATH ABBAS, DO. DO.

¶31

SHAHI, S/O.MADAMPAT KUNHIMOHAMMED, DO. DO.

¶32

HASSAN, S/O.PISHARATH MARAKKAR, DO. DO.

¶33

MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.PUTHUR BERANKUTTY MOSALIYAR, DO. DO.

¶34

ABDUL JABBAR, S/O. MADAMPAT ABBAS, DO. DO.

¶35

R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD R,R1,R3,R4,R5,R7,R8,R9,R10 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF R,R11,12,13,14,15 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF R,R16,17,18,19,20 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF R,R22 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF R2 BY ADV. ADV.SHIBILI NAHA R ADDL BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶36

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶38

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶39

C.R.P.No.159 of 2009

¶40

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2016

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Antony Dominic, J.

¶43

The plaintiff in O.S.40/06 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment and decree passed on the 1^st of December 2008. The suit in question was filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs rights as the muthavally and his performance of duties in that capacity. By the judgment under appeal, the suit was dismissed.

¶44

It is now brought to our notice by both sides that during the pendency of the revision petition, the muthavally who instituted the suit expired on 7.8.2013. Subsequently, I.A.2143/13 has been filed by another person describing himself as having succeeded as the Muthavally of the Juma Masjid. To this I.A., the

¶45

C.R.P.No.159 of 2009

¶46

: 2 :

¶47

respondents have filed a counter affidavit objecting to the locus standi of the applicant in the I.A. to get himself substituted as the petitioner.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the averments in the plaint would show that the suit in question was instituted for a personal remedy and as the person who instituted the suit is no more, it is unnecessary to consider the correctness of the judgment of the civil court or the merits of the contentions raised by either parties in the revision petition. We further clarify that this court has not considered the claim made by the petitioner in I.A.2143/13 or the contentions raised by the respondents herein disputing the claims made herein. However, it is made clear that all those contentions of the parties are also left open to be adjudicated in the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings.

¶49

C.R.P.No.159 of 2009

¶50

: 3 :

¶51

Clarifying this position and without going into the merits, this

¶52

Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶54

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

jes

Niramarathur Korangath Juma Masjid v. Muhammed Kutty @ Mamu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niramarathur Korangath Juma Masjid v. Muhammed Kutty @ Mamu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs G.Joseph

Royal Impex Vs the State of Kerala

Jyothikumar G.D. Vs Thomas T. George

Baffaki Yatheem Khana Vs Abdulla Koya

K.Avara Haji Vs T.Muhammed

Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S.Abad Fisheries