Dismissed

Mannambath Ponnadi Aali v. Paloli Kunhabdulla Haji

Kerala HC11 Jul 2024CRP(WAKF)/11/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging the Waqf Tribunal's judgment. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that there was no challenge to the 1943 gift deed transferring ownership to the mosque and management to the donor's children, rejecting the petitioners' claim to sole management.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; judgment of the Tribunal dated 19.10.2019 affirmed.

Mannambath Ponnadi Aali Vs Paloli Kunhabdulla Haji — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶7

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2019 IN W.O.S. NO.14 OF 2019 OF

¶9

WAQF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶10

REVISION PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶11

1MANNAMBATH PONNADI AALI
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.KALANTHAN, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM, DESOM,
KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶12

2MANNAMBATH PONNADI THARUVEYI
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.KALANTHAN, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM, DESOM,
KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶13

BY ADVS.
P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)
SHRI.RONY AUGUSTINE

¶14

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶15

1PALOLI KUNHABDULLA HAJI,
S/O.SOOPHY HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS, BUSINESS,
VELLIYODE AMSOM, DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA),
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶16

2 PALLIPARAMBATH AMMAD, S/O.ASSAN, AGED 45 YEARS, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM, DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶17

3 METHALE NADUVILAKKANDY POOKKU THANGAL, S/O.SEETHI THANGAL, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM, DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶18

4 VATHUKKAL POKKAR, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM, DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶19

5 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KALOOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682017.

¶20

6 THULAM PARAMBATH KUNHAMMAD, S/O.KUNHAMI, AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM, BHOOMIVATHUKKAL DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶21

7 THULAM PARAMBATH SOOPY, S/O.KUNHAMI, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, VELLIYODE AMSOM, BHOOMIVATHUKKAL DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶22

8 THULAM PARAMBATH MARIYAM,

¶23

D/O.KUNHAMI, AGED 52 YEARS, SWASTHAM, VELLIYODE AMSOM,
BHOOMIVATHUKKAL DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA),
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶24

9 VELLIYODE JUMA-ATH PALLI COMMITTEE, VELLIYODE AMSOM, BHOOMIVATHUKKAL DESOM, KODIYURA.P.O., KALLACHI (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673506.

¶25

KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD,

¶26

10 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WAQF BOARD, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KALOOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN682017.

¶27

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY

¶28

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020 -3-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

AMIT RAWAL, J.

¶32

The present CRP is directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19.10.2019 rendered in W.O.S.No.14 of 2019.

¶33

Kurunnamkandiyil Ponnandi Tharuveyi was the owner of the property measuring 7 Acre and 68 Cents. He had six children. One of the daughter’s name is Beekkutty alias Pathu as per the gift deed dated 01.06.1943 registered vide document No.1161 of 1943 of S.R.O. Kakkattil, was handed over its possession to Puthiyottil Ponnandi Ammad being the guardian of the minor children in whose favour the gift deed was given. The contents of the gift deed mentioned that the Wakf was Tharuveyi and there was already a hundred (100) year old mosque which had burned. Beekkutty had four brothers and one sister. In the year 1994 the property was registered as Wakf. The contention of the petitioners/ plaintiffs who are the children of Kalanthan,

¶34

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020 -4-

¶35

a bother of Beekkutty, was that after the death of Beekkutty her children could not have been permitted to maintain the mosque as, it was their right.

¶36

Respondents contested the case and raised an objection that there was no challenge to the gift deed executed in 1943 and in the absence of same, the properties are managed as per the wish and desire of the donor. Since the parties were at variance, learned tribunal framed the following issues:

¶37

“1) What is the correct identity of the plaint schedule property?

¶38

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration as sought for?

¶39

Whether the plaint schedule property is a waqf property as claimed by the defendants 1 to 4?

¶40

1. Reliefs and costs?

¶41

Additional Issues:-

¶42

1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

¶43

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020 -5-

¶44

Whether defendants 6 to 8 are the legal heirs of deceased Beekutty?

¶45

Whether defendant No.9 committee has any right over the plaint schedule property?”

¶46

2^nd petitioner – plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW1

¶47

and marked as Ext.A1, the gift deed. Defendants produced Exts.B1 to B3 and Court exhibits C1 and C2 were marked. B2 is the Certificate issued by the Divisional Officer, Waqf Board, Kozhikode.

¶48

Learned Tribunal examined the evidence on record and found that the plaintiffs had no case and dismissed the suit of declaration of the claim that the first plaintiff alone is entitled to run the administration and management of the mosque.

¶49

Mr.P.A.Augustine, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that right to manage the Juma-Ath-Masjid and its properties should derive from the recitals of Ext.A1 gift deed. The 9^th defendant – Velliyode Juma-ath Palli Committee was not

¶50

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020 -6-

¶51

constituted as per the recitals contained in the deed. Even if the bye-laws have been made, the right would flow to the other legal heirs of the Mutawalli as it was the private property of the Mutawalli and was never dedicated to Wakf. Gift deed did not entitle the 9^th defendant – Velliyode Juma-ath Palli Committee to manage its property without entering into a clear finding as to how the property would cover under Ext.A1 deed. Rather Tribunal ought to have decided the entitlement of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 9 to administrate the aforementioned property.

¶52

On the other hand, Mr.Jamsheed Hafiz, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Wakf Board supported the findings of the Tribunal on the premise that the property was being managed by one Tharuveyi. The children of Tharuveyi were given only management to run the mosque and one of the son was Ali Haji who had been President, Manager of the Mosque and also

¶53

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020 -7-

¶54

member of the committee applied for Registration of the property as Wakf, before the Board, as a President of the committee. There is no challenge to the gift deed. Therefore the petitioners on the basis of the recitals in the gift deed for management cannot acquire the absolute ownership or become suo motu members of the committee to manage and control the mosque. Mosque has already its own bye-laws and therefore even the grievance of non-framing of the scheme would not lie.

¶55

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶56

The recitals of the gift deed have already been extracted in the judgment under challenge. There is no denial to the fact that vide gift deed the children of Beekkutty, one of the daughters of mutawalli, was given the ownership of the mosque but the management was given to the children. Ali Haji being the elder son, manager and member of the committee controlled and

¶57

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020 -8-

¶58

managed the affairs for a period of thirty five (35) years and in 1994 decided to seek registration though it was being run as a mosque and under the control of Wakf Board. Elections were also been held after every three(3) years.

¶59

There is no challenge to the gift deed and until and unless the gift deed is challenged, the relief as sought for, for claiming declaration to run the management of the Wakf by only one of the son of mutawalli being the plaintiff No.1, would not lie. Finding of fact and law in our considered view do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. No ground for interference is made out in the revision petition. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶60

Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE

¶61

Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE

¶62

vv

¶63

CRP(WAKF) NO. 11 OF 2020 -9-

¶64

APPENDIX OF CRP(WAKF) 11/2020

¶65

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶66

ANNEXURE A1COPY APPLICATION FOR CERTIFIED COPIES
OF LOWER COURT DOCUMENTS

Mannambath Ponnadi Aali v. Paloli Kunhabdulla Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannambath Ponnadi Aali v. Paloli Kunhabdulla Haji

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

Maradu Market Traders' Association Vs Ashraf N.M

Putheripadam Sunni Jama-Ath Committee, Represented by Its Secretary Vs M.Shamsudheen

S.Ramachandran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Sarojam Vs Beena Roy

Kathali, Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Kathali

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Maradu Market Traders' Association Vs Ashraf N.M

Putheripadam Sunni Jama-Ath Committee, Represented by Its Secretary Vs M.Shamsudheen

*S.Ramachandran Nair* Vs the State of Kerala

Sarojam Vs Beena Roy

Kathali, Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Kathali

S.Ramachandran Nair Vs the State of Kerala