Partly allowed

Odumbra Pazhaya Juma-Ath Palli Paripalana Committee v. Masjid Taqwa Sunniya Madrassa Mahallu Committee

Kerala HC10 Feb 2021CRP(WAKF)/481/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the revision petition in part. It modified the Wakf Tribunal's judgment to explicitly entitle the respondent committee to demand a certificate from the petitioner confirming the deceased's membership before permitting burial in the ancestral graveyard.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is modified to entitle the first defendant to insist on a letter from the first plaintiff committee acknowledging the membership of the deceased person before burial.

Odumbra Pazhaya Juma-Ath Palli Paripalana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

¶7

CRP(WAKF).No.481 OF 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 71/2011 DATED 27-06-2015 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 ODUMBRA PAZHAYA JUMA-ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, C.MOHAMMED, OLAVANNA P.O., OLAVANNA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

2 ODUMBRA PAZHAYA JUMA-ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.MUHAMMED, S/O.KOYA,AGED 69 YEARS, VALAPPIL HOUSE, OLAVANNA P.O., OLAVANNA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 MASJID TAQWA SUNNIYA MADRASSA MAHALLU COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MOYIN P, S/O.MAYIN, THARAMMAL HOUSE, OLAVANNA P.O., OLAVANNA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 025.

¶16

2 MASJID TAQWA SUNNIYA MADRASSA MAHALLU COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.KUNHALANKUTTY, CHOLEKKAL HOUSE, OLAVANNA P.O., OLAVANNA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 025.

¶17

3 MASJID TAQWA SUNNIYA MADRASSA MAHALLU COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MOHIYUDHEEN O.V., S/O.MAMMED KOYA, KANDAN PARAMBIL, OLAVANNA P.O., OLAVANNA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 025.

¶18

4 ABDURAHIMAN C S/O.KUNHALANKUTTY, MASJID TAQWA SUNNIYA MADRASSA MAHALLU COMMITTEE, CHOLEKKAL HOUSE, OLAVANNA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 025.

¶19

CRP(WAKF).No.481 OF 2015

¶20

-2 -

¶21

5 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, VIP ROAD JUNCTION, KOCHI-682 017.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M..FIROZ (CAVEATOR) R1, R5 BY SRI.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD R5 BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD

¶23

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CRP(WAKF).No.481 OF 2015

¶25

- 3

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Dated this the 10th day of February 2021

¶28

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

¶29

At times, disputes do not leave even the dead behind! The rights of the members of a mahal to be buried in an ancient graveyard belonging to Odumbra Pazhaya Juma Ath Palli was sought to be declared in the suit O.S.No.71/2011 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. By the impugned judgment, the Wakf Tribunal decreed the suit. It was declared that the mahal members and the general body members of the first plaintiff are entitled to be buried in the plaint scheduled property which is an ancient graveyard, under the first defendant committee, subject to payment of appropriate charges. Consequential injunction was also granted. Defendants 1 and 2 are challenging the said judgment in this

¶30

CRP(WAKF).No.481 OF 2015

¶31

-4 -

¶32

revision petition, raising manifold grounds.

¶33

We have heard Adv.V.V.Surendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Adv.K.M.Firoz appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Adv.T.K.Saidalykutty, Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶34

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner during the course of his arguments confined his grievance against the impugned judgment to a lone point. It was submitted that, even though in the body of the judgment the Tribunal had observed that the appellant was entitled to insist on a letter from the first plaintiff certifying the membership of the person brought for burial, with the plaintiff committee, in the decretal portion, the said direction was absent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that as per the decretal portion of the impugned judgment, all persons irrespective of their membership with the first plaintiff mahal

¶35

CRP(WAKF).No.481 OF 2015

¶36

- 5

¶37

could be brought for burial, which would lead to disastrous consequences for the defendants. The counsel insisted for modification of the impugned judgment to the above limited extent.

¶38

A reading of paragraph 22 of the judgment shows that the learned Tribunal had entered the finding as below :-

¶39

“ So, having considered the whole aspects coupled with the evidence and the above said legal position, I have no inhibition to arrive at an upshot that the mahal and general body members of 1^st plaintiff committee have every right to be buried in the plaint schedule property. But, there is no dispute to the fact that first defendant committee has right of administration of the plaint schedule property, the ancient graveyard. So, they are at liberty to receive payment of pit fees and other incidental burial expenses so as to bury dead body of the mahal members of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property. Moreover, the first defendant can also insist a letter from the first plaintiff committee when the dead bodies of the general body and

¶40

CRP(WAKF).No.481 OF 2015

¶41

- 6

¶42

mahal members of the first plaintiff committee are brought for burial to show their membership with the plaintiff committee. So also, the plaintiff committee have to intimate the first defendant committee when the dead bodies of the general body and mahal members of the first plaintiff are sought to be buried in the plaint schedule property.”

¶43

Though the above findings were recorded in the judgment; in the decretal portion, the direction regarding the defendants' right to insist on a letter showing the membership of the deceased with the plaintiff was absent. It is no doubt a mistake. The counsel for the appellant is justified in his contentions.

¶44

Accordingly, we deem it fit to modify the impugned judgment to the limited extent of entitling the first defendant to insist on a letter from the first plaintiff committee acknowledging the membership of the deceased person whose body is brought for burial to show the membership with the first plaintiff committee. All other declarations and directions

¶45

CRP(WAKF).No.481 OF 2015

¶46

-7 -

¶47

in the decretal portion in the impugned judgment shall continue to remain.

¶48

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part and the judgment dated 27.06.2015 in O.S.No.71/2011 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. It is made clear that all other declaratory reliefs and injunctions granted by the Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment shall remain unaffected.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶54

RKM/JS

Odumbra Pazhaya Juma-Ath Palli Paripalana Committee v. Masjid Taqwa Sunniya Madrassa Mahallu Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Odumbra Pazhaya Juma-Ath Palli Paripalana Committee v. Masjid Taqwa Sunniya Madrassa Mahallu Committee

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

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Hosdurg Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Feroke Service Co-Operative

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S.Hosdurg Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt.T.C.Usha,Kollam Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax Tvm

M/S Traco Cable Company Ltd. Cochin Vs the Commissioner Ofincome Tax Cochin

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Shalimar Jewellary