Dismissed

Abdul Azeez v. Kerala State Wakf Board

Kerala HC19 May 2016CRP/33/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble the Court considered a Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of the Wakf Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's claim of title over properties dedicated to a Madrassa, citing valid dedication and lack of due process in alienation. The High Court found no legal infirmities in the Tribunal's reasoning.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abdul Azeez Vs Kerala State Wakf Board — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016/29TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶7

CRP.No. 33 of 2012 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1/2011 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 15-11-2011

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 48, S/O MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT MUTHALAKULAVAN HOUSE, POOKOTTUM PADAM P.O, AMARAMBALAM AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.E.NARAYANAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI. 682017.

¶14

KARUNIYAN AHAMMEDKUTTY, PRESIDENT, NOORAL ISLAM MADRASSA, PAYAMPADAM, POOKOTTUMPADAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 679332.

¶15

SAFIYA, AGED 44 D/O KATTAKADAN PATHUMMA

¶16

T. SADIQUE, AGED 36 S/O KATTAKADAN PATHUMMA

¶17

T. SAKEER, AGED 31 S/O KATTAKADAN PATHUMMA

¶18

T. SHAJI, AGED 29 S/O KATTAKADAN PATHUMMA

¶19

(R3 TO R6 RESIDING AT THEMUCHI HOUSE, POOKOTTUM PADAM P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 332.)

¶20

R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RR2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RR2 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA R1 BY SC

¶21

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶23

C.R.P.No.33 of 2012

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶28

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.A.1/11 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. He has sought a declaration concerning application A and B scheduled properties: (1) that the schedule properties are not wakf properties; (2) that the ‘jenm assignment deeds’ executed by the second respondent in his favour are valid;

¶29

(3) and that the first respondent Board’s act of entering the Wakf Register is illegal and void. Unsuccessful in his initial endeavour, the petitioner has filed this civil revision petition.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the first respondent, apart from perusing the record.

¶31

The properties in question comprise 11 and 14 cents in re-survey No.215/6—described as A and B schedule. Claiming that he

¶32

CRP.33/12

¶33

¶34

purchased the properties through assignment deeds from the second respondent, who happens to be the President of the Nooral Islam Madrassa, Payampadam, the revision petitioner sought a declaration, among other things, of his title.

¶35

Upon a full-fledged trial, the Tribunal rendered findings against the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that the property originally belonged to one Bharathi Amma, from whom the second respondent obtained pattam right. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal at Nilambur, through suo motu proceedings 3101/75, granted pattayam. And, as a result, the second respondent obtained jenm right over the property.

¶36

In the face of petitioner’s claim that he had purchased the property through Exts.A1 and A2 from the second respondent, the wife of one Mr. Unnimoyin, who was said to have dedicated the property to the Wakf, lodged a complaint before the Wakf Board: that the petitioner had been in illegal possession of the property which belonged to the Wakf.

¶37

¶38

CRP.33/12

¶39

Acting on the complaint, the Board initially ordered the petitioner to restore the property to the Wakf. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA Nos.13 & 14 of 2008 before the Wakf Tribunal, which seems to have set aside the order of recovery passed by the Board. Under these circumstances, having found that the property had not been reflected in its registers, the Board remedially got the property listed in Ext.A5 register. Thereafter, it claimed the property on the strength of the entry in Ext.A5 register. This act of the Board has proved to have provided the cause of action to the petitioner for the litigation: OA No.1 of 2011.

¶40

The records indisputably disclose that all along the property has been used for religious and charitable purposes as seen from the Commissioner’s Report in OS.255/06 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri. The said Commissioner has in fact been examined as RW2 during the trial in the OA. Concerning the nature of property, the Tribunal has pertinently observed that all along the property had been in possession of the Madrassa Committee and

¶41

CRP.33/12

¶42

¶43

that there existed a Madrassa building and a Niskara Palli, as have been disclosed through Exts.B3, B9, and B10. The second respondent has dealt with the property, at best, as the President of the Madrasa, but not in his individual capacity.

¶44

As regards the plea of bona fide purchase, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner has not produced any record to show that the second respondent has followed due process, say, of obtaining the General Body’s permission for effecting alienation. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has conclusively held that the sale has been vitiated and the property belongs to the Madrassa.

¶45

On the procedural front, the Tribunal has also held that the Wakf and the Muttavalli representing the Wakf are necessary parties but they have not been arrayed as parties to the proceedings. Thus, even on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties, the Tribunal has held against the petitioner.

¶46

10.Compendiously considered, we can see no legal infirmities in the judgment of the learned Tribunal in disallowing the petitioner’s

¶47

CRP.33/12

¶48

¶49

plea that he is rightfully entitled to the property. Accordingly, we dismiss the CRP. No order on costs.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.

¶54

kkb.

¶55

/True copy/

¶56

PS to Judge

Abdul Azeez v. Kerala State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abdul Azeez v. Kerala State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I. Abdul Salam Vs R. Abdulla Faizi

Mohammed Kutty Vs Kaliyekkal Niskarapalli Darussalam Madra

The Payyannur Co-Operative Rural Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

T.Shoukath Ali Vs Kizhakkumpuram Jama-Ath Pally Committee

M/S.Cream Packs (P) Ltd, Kannur Vs State of Kerala

M/S Bhima Jeweliers Vs State of Kerala