Dismissed

Kayalmadathil Kanavath Kammed v. Konnaloor Juma-at-Palli Committee

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024CRP/39/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, challenging the dismissal of a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The High Court held that the Waqf Tribunal correctly dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the property, relying on a purchase certificate held by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed. The issues regarding the purchase certificate are left to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

Kayalmadathil Kanavath Kammed Vs Konnaloor… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

C.R.P.(WAKF) No.39 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶9

C.R.P.(WAQF)NO.39OF 2012

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2011 IN O.S.NO.2 OF 2011 OF THE WAKF

¶11

TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶12

REVISION PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

KAYALMADATHIL KANAVATH KAMMED,
S/O.CHEKKUTTY,ANANDAVOOR AMSOM,KONNALLOOR
DESOM,KONNALLOOR(PO), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.K.RAVI PARIYARATH

¶16

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶17

1 KONNALOOR JUMA-AT PALLI COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,KAYALMADATHIL MOHAMEDUNNI MASTER,S/O.MOHAMMED,ANANDAVOOR AMSOM, KONNALLOOR DESOM, KONNALLOOR(PO),PIN-676102,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

2 KONNALOOR JUMA-AT PALLI COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KUMMALIL, KUTTIKATTIL SAIDALI, S/O.ENI,ANANDAVOOR AMSOM,KONNALLOOR DESOM,KONNALLOOR(PO),PIN-676102,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

3 KERALA WAKF BOARD V.I.P.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,PIN-682020.

¶20

BY ADV SRI.R.RAMADAS FOR R2

¶21

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶22

05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

C.R.P.(WAKF) No.39 of 2012

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶27

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, which was one filed against the respondents-defendants, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful possession of the same by the plaintiff. On receipt of notice, defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance before the Tribunal. The 2^nd defendant alone filed written statement raising a contention that it is in possession of the plaint schedule property, which is covered by a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in S.M. proceedings No.1982/75. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner, who submitted Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 sketch of the plaint schedule property, was examined as RW1. After considering the rival contentions, the Waqf Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2011, dismissed O.S.No.2 of 2011, for the reasons stated therein. Feeling aggrieved, the

¶28

¶29

C.R.P.(WAKF) No.39 of 2012

¶30

petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court in this Revision Petition, invoking the provisions under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995.

¶31

On 09.07.2013, when this Revision Petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-defendants 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Waqf Board for the 3^rd respondent-3^rd defendant.

¶33

The reasoning of the Waqf Tribunal in the impugned

¶34

judgment dated 14.10.2011 in O.S.No.2 of 2011, as contained in paragraphs 18 and 19, reads thus;

¶35

“18. It is alleged by the plaintiff that while he was in possession of the property he went to the property on 25.10.2010 for making a well as there was no well in the property. Then the defendants obstructed him and threatened that they will not allow him to enter in the property. Hence the suit. Ext.C1 is the commission report. Commission report prepared by DW1 would show that there are two wells in the property. So the case of the plaintiff that there is no well in the property and his attempt to construct a well in the property for the purpose of improving the property was obstructed by the defendant is seems to be incorrect.

¶36

According to the defendant, in fact 2^nd defendant committee was in possession of the property as Wakf property and they obtained purchase certificate with respect of the property and paying tax. They produced Ext.B2 copy

¶37

¶38

C.R.P.(WAKF) No.39 of 2012

¶39

of the purchase certificate, Exts.B3 and B4 tax receipts in support of their contentions. During cross examination P.W.1 admitted that he knew about the issuance of Ext.B2 purchase certificate in favour of the committee and he has not taken any steps to set aside the same so far. Ext.B2 purchase certificate was issued under section 72 of the KLR Act in favour of 2^nd defendant with respect to the property comprised in re-survey No.215/9. There is no case for the plaintiff that the property referred to in Ext.B2 to B4 and the plaint schedule are different properties. On the contrary he admits the property referred to in Ext.B2 is the plaint schedule property. Once it is shown that the purchase certificate was issued with respect to a property it can be presumed that the person in whose favour the purchase certificate was issued is in possession of the property. Lakshmi v. Viswanathan [1999 (2) KLT 621 : 1999 (2) KLJ 238] . Under section 72K(1) of Kerala Land Reforms Act purchase certificate is a conclusive proof of assignment to the tenant and the right, title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries if any. Therefore, considering the entire evidence adduced in this case, I am of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the plaint schedule properties and cause of action to get a prohibitory injunction against the defendants as claimed. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get prohibitory injunction as claimed. Issue are so found.”

¶40

As already noticed hereinbefore, O.S.No.2 of 2011 was one filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondentsdefendants seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining

¶41

the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful possession of the same by the plaintiff. A reading of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that the plaintiff failed to prove

¶42

¶43

C.R.P.(WAKF) No.39 of 2012

¶44

possession of the plaint schedule property. Considering the nature of issue involved in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, the Waqf Tribunal dismissed O.S.No.2 of 2011, when the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property. In that view of the matter, the Waqf Tribunal cannot be found fault with, in dismissing O.S.No.2 of 2011, for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2011.

¶45

In the result, this Revision Petition fails for the aforesaid reason and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the rival contentions regarding Ext.B2 purchase certificate or Exts.B3 and B4 land tax receipts. Those issues have to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings between the parties.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE

¶51

MIN

Kayalmadathil Kanavath Kammed v. Konnaloor Juma-at-Palli Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kayalmadathil Kanavath Kammed v. Konnaloor Juma-at-Palli Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.M Trust @ T.K.M College Vs Noushad

New India Fuels Vs Issac N. Issac

Manikandan.M.P Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government Vs James Varghese

Suo Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

T.a.Arunanand Vs State of Kerala