Allowed¶37

Isbanthiyar Baig Mosque v. M.V. Laxminarasimma Sah(Died)

Madras HC16 Apr 2026CRP/3865/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Waqf Act 1995 Section 90 mandatory joinder and notice of Waqf Board; decree in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 (Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram) held non est in law and set aside; Tamilnadu Wakf Board not made party to suit; CRP No. 3865 of 2017; Article 227 Constitution with Section 83(9) Waqf Act; Madras High Court; judge K. Kumaresh Babu; decision dated 16-04-2026; liberty to file fresh suit; respondents substituted as LRs of deceased M.V. Laxminarasimma Sah; Wakf Board impleaded as R-6.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree dated 26.06.2008 in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 (Principal Sub Judge, Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District) set aside; Civil Revision Petition allowed; liberty granted to initiate appropriate proceedings on the cause of action on which the suit was filed; no costs. ¶37

Isbanthiyar Baig Mosque Vs M.V. Laxminarasimma… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 is vitiated because the Waqf Board was not made a party to the suit, although such joinder is mandatory under Section 90 of the Waqf Act, 1995. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The Waqf Board had not been made a party to the suit in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006, although making it a party is mandatory as per Section 90 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The judgment and decree does not indicate that notice had been ordered by the Waqf Tribunal to the Waqf Board, as required under Section 90 of the Waqf Act.

¶35

Key takeaways

Since the decree was passed without the mandatory joinder of the Waqf Board and without notice to it under Section 90 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the judgment and decree is contrary to the statutory mandates of the Waqf Act, 1995 and is non est in law.ratio¶36
The judgment and decree dated 26.06.2008 made in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 (Principal Sub Judge, Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District) stands set aside and the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings on the same cause of action and no costs awarded.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.), CRP No. 3865 of 2017, order dated 16-04-2026: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2008 in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 of the Principal Sub Judge, Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District. Perusal of the plaint showed the Waqf Board was not made a party to the suit, though such joinder is mandatory under Section 90 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and the judgment and decree showed no notice ordered by the Tribunal to the Waqf Board as required under Section 90. The decree was therefore contrary to statutory mandates and non est in law: set aside; revision allowed; liberty to institute fresh proceedings on the same cause of action; no costs.

¶1

CRP No. 3865 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CRP No. 3865 of 2017

¶7

Isbanthiyar Baig Mosque Rep By Its Mutawalli, S. Nagore Meeran, S/o. Shamsudeen, Sheikpet Shavadi Street, Kancheepuram.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

M.V. Laxminarasimma Sah(Died)

¶11

Samundeeswari Bai

¶12

Seetharam Sah

¶13

Janakiram Sah

¶14

Sreenivasan Sah

¶15

(Sole Respondent died. Respondents 2 to 5 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R-1 Viz. M.V.Laxminarasimma Sah vide court order dated.09/08/2023 made in CMP Nos.14853,14858 and 14860 of 2023 in CRP (NPD) No.3865 of 2017)

¶16

The Tamilnadu Wakf Board Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai -1. (R-6 impleaded vide Court order dated 27/02/2024 made in CMP No.3400 of 2022 in CRPNo.3865 of 2017)

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

__________ Page1 of 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRP No. 3865 of 2017

¶21

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 26.06.2008 and made Wakf OS.No.45/2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Wakf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain For Respondent(s): R1- Died

¶23

Mr.J.Ram For Mr.M. Ramesh (For R2 To R5)

¶24

Mr. Avinash Wadhwani (For R6)

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgement and

¶27

decree dated 26.06.2008 and made Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the

¶28

Principal Sub Judge, Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.

¶29

Heard Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ram, representing Mr.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶30

3.The present revision has been filed as against the judgment and decree

¶31

made by the Waqf Tribunal as early as in the year 2008. A perusal of the plaint would indicate that the Waqf Board had not been made a party to the suit, which

¶32

Page2 of 5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRP No. 3865 of 2017

¶35

is mandatory as per the provisions of Section 90 of the Waqf Act, 1995. A perusal of the judgment and decree does not also indicate that notice had been ordered by the Waqf Tribunal to the Waqf Board, as required under Section 90 of the Waqf Act.

¶36

In such view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed is contrary to the statutory mandates as required under the Waqf Act, 1995 and hence, the judgment and decree could only be termed as non est in law.

¶37

Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2008 made in Wakf OS.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Waqf Tribunal, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District stands set aside and this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. Liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings on the cause of action, on which the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2006 had been filed is granted. No costs.

¶38

16-04-2026

¶39

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶40

kak

¶41

__________ Page3 of 5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CRP No. 3865 of 2017