Allowed

T.P.Abdul Kareem Haji, v. Kerala State Wakf Board

Kerala HC4 Jul 2024WP(C)/15317/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions. The bench held that since a civil court judgment (A.S.No.198 of 1999) affirmed properties were never Wakf properties, the Waqf Board lacked jurisdiction to institute proceedings or pass orders. The court quashed the impugned orders and struck off the original petitions.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ex.P4 order dated 02.05.2019 in I.A.No.81 of 2019 in O.P.No.80 of 2019; Struck off O.P.No.80 of 2019 and O.P.No.181 of 2015 from the files of the 1st respondent Board.

T.P.Abdul Kareem Haji, Vs Kerala State Wakf Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1946
W.P.(C)NO.15277 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST OP NO.80 OF 2019 OF WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 PADNE MUSLIM CHARITABLE TRUST, PADNE P.O, PADNE THEKKEPURAM, KASARAGOD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ABDUL RAHMAN M.K.C, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, NAFEESA MANZIL, PADNE P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD-671 312.

¶10

2 T.P. ABDUL KAREEM HAJI, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. MARIYUMMA, PADNE, THEKKEPURAM, NEAR PETROL PUMP, PADNE P.O., KASARAGOD-671 312.

¶11

3 M.K.C. ABDUL RAHMAN AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, NAFEESA MANZIL, PADNE P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD-671 312.

¶12

BY ADVS.
P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
JINU JOSEPH
SHIJU VARGHESE (ERNAKULAM)
ANU PHILIPOSE

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, EROTH CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶15

2 V.K. MUHAMMEDALI HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, PADNE KALIKADAVU P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671 357.

¶16

3 A.C. KAMAL S/O. P. SULAIMAN HAJI, PADANNA, THEKKEPURAM, PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE-671 312.

¶17

4 M.K. KUNJUMOIDEEN KUTTY, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI, PADANNA THEKKEPURAM, PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE-671 312.

¶18

*5 P.K. ABDUL KADAR S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,

¶19

KASARGODE DISTRICT- 671 357 (DELETED – EXPIRED).

¶20

*(DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED
13.06.2024 IN IA NO.2 OF 2024 IN WP(C) NO.15277 OF
2021).

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶23

6 K.V. ABDUL AZIZ PAYYANKI, KAITHAKADU P.O., 671 313, CHERUVATHOOR, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶24

7 AFSATH UDINOOR VALAPPIL, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O LATE P.K.ABDUL KADAR HAJI, PAIHANA MANZIL, PAYYANKI, KAITHAKAD P.O., 671313 CHERUVATHOOR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶25

8 RAIHANATH, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O LATE P.K.ABDUL KADAR, RAIHANA MANZIL, PAYYANKI, KAITHAKAD P.O., 671313 CHERUVATHOOR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶26

9 SIRAJ, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O LATE P.K.ABDUL KADAR, RAIHANA MANZIL, PAYYANKI, KAITHAKAD P.O., 671313 CHERUVATHOOR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶27

10 JAFFAR S/O LATE P.K.ABDUL KADAR, RAIHANA MANZIL, PAYYANKI, KAITHAKAD P.O., 671313 CHERUVATHOOR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶28

11 SUMMAYA D/O LATE P.K.ABDUL KADAR, RAIHANA MANZIL, PAYYANKI, KAITHAKAD P.O, 671313 CHERUVATHOOR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶29

12 KUNJAMINA AGED 60 YEARS, W/O LATE P.K.ABDUL KADAR, N.K.HOUSE, PADANNA P.O, KADAPURAM, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶30

13 RAKEEB S/O LATE P.K.ABDUL KADAR, N.K.HOUSE, PADNE P.O, KADAPURAM, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671312.

¶31

BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
No Advocate
M.K.SUMOD
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶32

OTHER PRESENT:

¶33

SC WAQF BORD- SRI. JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

¶35

04.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.15317 OF 2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶41

¶42

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶43

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶44

WP(C) NO. 15317 OF 2021

¶45

AGAINST OP NO.181 OF 2015 OF WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM

¶46

PETITIONERS:

¶47

T.P.ABDUL KAREEM HAJI,
AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. MARIYUMMA, PADNE,
THEKKEPURAM, NEAR PETROL PUMP, PADNE P.O.,
KASARAGOD-671312.

¶48

BY ADVS.
P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
JINU JOSEPH
SHIJU VARGHESE (ERNAKULAM)
ANU PHILIPOSE

¶49

RESPONDENTS:

¶50

1 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, EROTH BUILDING, BANK ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CMO, KOZHIKODE-673004.

¶51

2 U.K.HASHIM, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. N.B.ABDULLA HAJI, AFSA MANZIL, ORIMUKKU KAIDAKAD P.O. -671313, KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶52

3 P.P.MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, PADNE VADAKKEPURAM, PADNE P.O., KASARGOD-671312.

¶53

4 M.C.HASHIM, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, SUMAYYA MANZIL, ORIMUKKU, KAIDAKKAD P.O. -671313, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶54

5 M.ABDUL KHADAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, ORIMUKKU, KAIDAKKAD P.O.-671313, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶55

6 P.V.MOIDU, S/O.T.K.C.HAMEED, ORIMUKKU, KAIDAKAD P.O.-671313, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶56

7 K.ABUBACKER HAJI, S/O.MOHAMMED, PADANNA VADAKKEPURAM, KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.

¶57

8 T.P.ABUBACKER HAJI, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, PADANNA KALIKADAVU, KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶60

`9`	`T.C.KUNJABDULLA HAJI,` `S/O. KANHAMMAD HAJI, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,`
	`KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`10`	`T.C.MUHAMMED KUNHI HAJI,`
	`S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, PADANNA, KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`11`	`V.K.MOHAMMED HAJI,`
	`S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,`
	`KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`12`	`T.P.ABDUL MUTHALIB,` `S/O. MUHAMMED, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,` `KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`13`	`U.K.C.ABDULRAHIM HAJI,`
	`PADANNA KALIKADAVU, KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`14`	`P.V.AHAMMED SHERIF,` `S/O.MOHAMMED, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,` `KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`15`	`T.P.MOHAMMEDALI HAJI,` `S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,`
	`KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`16`	`P.MOHAMMEDALI HAJI,`
	`S/O. ABUBACKER HAJI, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,` `KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`17`	`P.V.MOHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI,` `S/O. ISMAIL MOULAVI, PADANNA KALIKADAVU,`
	`KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`18`	`K.V.ABDUL AZIZ,`
	`PAYYANKI, KAIDAKAD P.O., CHERUVATHOOR,`
	`KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`19`	`C.H.ASAINAR HAJI,`
	`PADANNA BAZAR P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`20`	`V.K.MOHAMMED KUNJU,` `S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, PADANNA VADAKKEPURAM, PADANNA P.O.,`
	`KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`21`	`P.BASHEER AHAMMED HAJI,`
	`S/O. ABUBACKER HAJI, PADANNA VADAKKEPURAM,`
	`PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`22`	`U.K.C.ABDUL RAHMAN,` `AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, PRESIDENT,` `NUSRATHUL ISLAM JAMA-AT COMMITTEE, ORIMUKKU P.O.,` `KAIDAKADU-671313.`
`23`	`P.V.AHAMMED SHERIF,`
	`AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. T.C.MOHAMMED, SECRETARY,` `NUSRATHUL ISLAM JAMA-AT COMMITTEE, P.V.HOUSE,`
	`PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`24`	`P.V.C.SULAIMAN,`
	`S/O. ABUBACKER HAJI, VADAKKEPURAM, P.O.PADANNA,`
	`KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312`
`25`	`.` `K.BEEFATHUMMA`
	`,` `M/O. KUNJAMEENA, POLLAYIL KAVUNTHARA HOUSE,` `PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`26`	`M.K.C.KUNJUMOIDEEN KUTTY,`
	`S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, PADANNA THEKKEPURAM,`

¶61

¶62

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶63

	`PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`27`	`V.SAINABA,`
	`W/O. P.V.C.MOHAMMED KUNJU HAJI,`
	`PADANNA, VADAKKEPURAM, NEAR SALAFI PALLY,`
	`PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`28`	`M.K.SHABANA,`
	`M/O.BEEFATHUMMA, POLLAYIL KAVUMTHALA HOUSE,`
	`PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`29`	`M.K.SABEENA,`
	`M/O.BEEFATHUMMA, POLLAYIL KAVUMTHALA HOUSE,` `PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`30`	`S.C.KUNJU MOIDEEN KUTTY,` `S/O. T.P.MOHAMMEDALI HAJI, PADANNA, VADAKKEPURAM,` `PADANNA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
`31`	`A.C.KAMAL,`
	`S/O. P.SULAIMANHAJI, PADANNA P.O., PADANNA,` `VADAKKEPURAM, KASARGODE DISTRICT-671312.`
	`BY ADVS.`
	`SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD- R1`
	`ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH -` `R-9 to R14`
	`U.P.BALAKRISHNAN -` `R-30`
	`K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)`
	`E.MOHAMMED SHAFI`

¶64

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.15277/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

¶66

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶67

JUDGMENT

¶68

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

¶69

These two writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 02.05.2019 in O.P. No.80 of 2019 in W.P.(C)No.15277 of 2021 and Ext.P1 in O.P.No.181 of 2015 in W.P.(C)No.15317 of 2021 on the files of the 1^st respondent State Wakf Board in both the cases.

¶70

The facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions, as culled out from W.P.(C)No.15277 of 2021 are as under:

¶71

O.P.No.80 of 2019 was filed before the 1^st respondent Board by the 2^nd respondent herein. The petitioners in this writ petition and respondents 3 to 6 herein were respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 respectively, in the said original petition filed before the 1^st respondent herein. The above original petition was filed invoking the provisions under Sections 32, 51, 52 & 70 of the Waqf Act for

¶72

passing an order to the effect that the petitioners herein have no right to encroach in the Wakf property and also for prosecuting the petitioners herein with respect to the encroachment in the Wakf property having an extent of 2.87 Acres as per document

¶73

¶74

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶75

Nos.1812/1983, 2296/1983, 2961/1985, 2502/1985, 2504/1985, 2505/1985 and 2962/1985. The 1^st respondent Board by Ext.P4 order dated 02.05.2019, issued an order restraining the respondents in O.P.No.80 of 2019, from making any constructions in the Wakf property covered by the documents mentioned above. 3. It is aggrieved by the above order at Ext.P4 that this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. On 30.07.2021, this writ petition was admitted on file and further proceedings in O.P.No.80 of 2019 were stayed. The above order of stay has been subsequently extended on 21.10.2021. On 16.03.2022, the said stay has been revived and extended and is being extended from time to time.

¶76

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.

¶77

The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.15277 of 2021, points out that Ext.P4 order issued by the 1^st respondent and the entire proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 O.P.No.80 of 2019 instituted before the 1^st respondent, are without

¶78

any basis and jurisdiction. He points out that the 1^st petitioner Trust

¶79

¶80

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶81

is the absolute owner and in possession of 80.13 Ares of landed property forming part of survey No.141/2B of Padanna Village by virtue of document 544/2019 of Sub Registrar’s Office, Thrikkaripur. The prior documents as regards the above document are traced out to document Nos.1812/1983 and 2296/1983 of the same Sub Registrar’s Office. He points out that the properties covered by these documents including the documents mentioned in Ext.P3, presented before the 1^st respondent Board, were the subject matter of O.S.No.12 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg, instituted by Nusrathul Islam Jama-ath Committee on 13.03.1997, seeking to declare the said properties to be Wakf properties. In the above suit, it was alleged that the 1^st defendant therein in his capacity as the President of the 1^st plaintiff Committee, purchased some properties with the funds of the Committee and dishonestly transferred these properties to his kith and kin. In the suit, the 1^st respondent Board herein, who was the 12^th defendant, filed a written statement pointing out that the plaint scheduled properties were never registered as Wakf properties. The learned counsel relies on Ext.P1 judgment, by which the above suit has been dismissed, pointing out that though A.S.No.198 of 1999 was preferred against Ext.P1 before this Court. By judgment dated

¶82

¶83

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶84

06.11.2023, the appeal was dismissed by this Court confirming the judgment of the Sub Court. The counsel, therefore, points out that the very institution of Ext.P3 before the 1^st respondent Board is an abuse of the process of law and has to be interdicted by this Court.

¶85

Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondents points out that the 1^st respondent Board has issued Ext.P4 order after being convinced of the prima facie case made out in the matter and therefore there is no merit in this writ petition.

¶86

We have considered the submissions made by the respective parties and also perused the connected records. It is seen that O.P.No.80 of 2019 is presented before the 1^st respondent Board praying for an order to the effect that the respondents therein have no right to encroach on the properties mentioned therein and to make constructions without prior sanction of the Board. The said petition has been presented, styling the above referred property to be a Wakf property. A reading of Ext.P3 would reveal that the petition before the 1^st respondent is filed alleging that the properties of the Wakf have been alienated and therefore Sections 51 and 52 of the Act have to be invoked. In this connection, we notice that as regards the very same properties, a suit was instituted in the Civil Court as O.S.No.12 of 1997. In the

¶87

¶88

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶89

said suit also, the allegations were, more or less, the same. The

¶90

Sub Court, Hosdurg, by Ext.P1 judgment, has held as under:-

¶91

“…Thus, on appreciation of the rival contention and the evidence on record, I am constrained to hold a view that the pliant A schedule properties had never acquired the characteristics of a wakf property and the question of obtaining permission from the Wakf to sell the same does not arise for determination. The Wakf Board has itself made clear that these properties were not registered as wakf properties and they are unnecessary parties to the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that it is the bounden duty of the then office bearers of the committee to register these properties as wakf and the dereliction of their duty should be taken into account. It is already found that these properties were the acquisition of a registered committee and it was possible for the committee to deal the property in accordance with the resolution made to that effect by the members. The plaintiff’s case is not that the then registered committee had sold away all the properties of the Mosque without having a resolution. On the other hand their specific case is that there properties are wakf properties and that the committee had no manner of right to dispose of the same. But the contention has already been negatived by me in the preceding paragraphs and I hold that a wakf had not been created in respect of plaint A schedule properties and that by long user of the properties acquired by the committee it has never acquired the features of a valid wakf. In these circumstances, these issues are answered against the

¶92

¶93

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶94

plaintiff.

¶95

The above findings are challenged by filing A.S.No.198 of 1999 before this Court. By the judgment dated 06.11.2023, this Court has confirmed the findings of the Sub Court, as under:

¶96

“16. It is in evidence before the court below that the registered committee had acquired the properties in the name of the committee and the properties not being waqf properties could be sold to 3^rd parties by the committee. The 12^th defendant has filed the written statement that as per the records of Wakf board the muthawalli of the Wakf was Madrassul Hameediya managing committee and no society by name Padane Kalikkadavu Nusrathul Islam Juma-ath committee registered as No.238/83 under the registration of the societies registration Act was registered with the wakf board. The plaint A schedule properties were never properties as wakf properties at any point of time. The acquisition and alienation done by the committee headed by the 1^st defendant was not informed to the board and since the society was not registered with the Board, they are not liable to inform the Board regarding the purchase as well as disposal. The contention taken by the plaintiff was that though the properties purchased by the committee during 1983 could be treated as waqf property due to long user. But there is absolutely no evidence to treat the properties as wakf property even the 12^th defendant in their written statement has categorically submitted that the properties were never registered with the wakf board as wakf properties, since the committee which purchased the

¶97

¶98

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶99

properties were not registered with the Board. A registered committee under the Societies Registration Act is competent to purchase and dispose of the properties according to the decisions of the managing committee. As mentioned earlier the purchase and disposal of properties by the committee headed by the 1^st defendant was ratified and accepted by the plaintiff through Ext.B2 and it was made clear that the 2 properties having an extent of 25 cents and 42 cents are only the wakf properties of the plaintiff.”

¶100

In the light of the above findings, there cannot be any dispute that the properties covered by Ext.P2 are not Wakf properties.

¶101

Unless and until the properties concerned can be treated as Wakf properties, recourse to the provisions under Sections 32, 50, 51, 52 or 70 of the Waqf Act can be taken. Insofar as there is a categorical finding by the civil court to the effect that the properties concerned are not Wakf properties, the very institution of Ext.P2 petition before the 1^st respondent was without justification. For the very same reason, Ext.P4 ought not to have been issued by the 1^st respondent Board. This is especially so, when the 1^st respondent Board was the 12^th defendant in Ext.P1 judgment.

¶102

As regards W.P.(C)No.15317 of 2021, we notice that respondents 2 to 6 in the writ petition filed O.P.No.181 of 2015

¶103

¶104

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶105

before the 1^st respondent Board with respect to the properties covered by O.P.No.80 of 2019, which is the subject matter of W.P.(C)No.15277 of 2021. The prayers in the said O.P.No.181 of 2015 and O.P.No.80 of 2019 are more or less similar.

¶106

Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the very institution of O.P.No.80 of 2019 and O.P.No.181 of 2015 before the 1^st respondent Board was without any justification. In that view of the matter, we allow these writ petitions-

¶107

(i) by quashing Ext.P4 order dated 02.05.2019 in I.A.No.81 of 2019 in O.P.No.80 of 2019 before the 1^st respondent Board. (ii) striking off O.P.No.80 of 2019 and O.P.No.181 of 2015 from the files of the 1^st respondent Board.

¶108

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶109

Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE

¶110

Skk//20.07.2024

¶111

¶112

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶113

APPENDIX OF W.P.(C)NO.15317 OF 2021

¶114

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶115

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL
PETITION IN O.P.NO.181 OF 2015.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY
RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12, 14, 15 AND 18 TO 26 IN
O.P.NO.181 OF 2015 DATED 05.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.12/1997
DATED 22.09.1998.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN
A.S.NO.198 OF 1999.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.

¶116

¶117

W.P.(C)Nos.15317 & 15277 of 2021

¶118

APPENDIX OF W.P.(C)NO.15277 OF 2021

¶119

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶120

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.12 OF
1997 DATED 22.09.1998
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN
A.S.NO.198 OF 1999
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P NO
80 OF 2019
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2019 IN
I.A NO.81 OF 2019 IN O.P NO.80 OF 2019
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO. 198 OF
1999 DATED 06.11.2023

T.P.Abdul Kareem Haji, v. Kerala State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Abdul Kareem Haji, v. Kerala State Wakf Board

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

Kerala Nadi Samrakshana Samathi, Register No. 1052/99 Vs Dr. Divya S. Iyer

Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-Ath Committ Vs v.a.Pareeth

Ambala Parambil Kunhayin, Vs the State of Kerala

Baiju, Vs Priyanka Rajeev

Padne Muslim Charitable Trust, Vs Kerala State Wakf Board

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director