9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1878 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of plaint - Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal - rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the suit - whether suit filed by the appellant before the Wakf Tribunal praying for decree of possession of suit property was maintainable in Wakf Tribunal or would lie only in a Civil Court? HELD THAT - Although, the Wakf Tribunal has held that suit was maintainable before it, the High Court has reversed the order of the Tribunal holding that the suit is not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram. Before we notice the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram 2010 (9) TMI 1267 - SUPREME COURT , the statutory provisions pertaining to Wakf and Wakf property need to be noted. As per Section 6 sub-section (1) if any question arises as to whether a Wakf property in the list of Wakfs is wakf property or not,a suit can be instituted in a Tribunal for the decision of the question which decision shall be treated as final. Limitation for such suit was also provided in proviso as one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs. Sub-section (5) of Section 6 contained the provision barring a suit in any Court after the commencement of the Act in relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1). In Suit No.250 dated 10.09.2001 (RBT No.84 dated 09.10.2006, Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh) the question has arisen as to whether suit property is a Wakf property or not. We have noticed pleadings in written statement filed by the defendant in the above suit where it was specifically denied that suit property is a Wakf property. Thus, within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 6 question that whether a suit property is a Wakf property or not has arisen. Thus, the suit wherein the above question has arisen ought to be considered by the Tribunal and the High Court clearly erred in allowing the revision filed by the defendant by its order dated 20.09.2010. The view of the High Court that right, title and interest of a non-Muslim to the Wakf in a property cannot be put in jeopardy is contrary to the statutory scheme as contained in Section 6 of the Act, 1995. Thus, the reason of the High Court to allow the revision petition is wholly unfounded. The defendant in written statement has pleaded that the suit property is not Wakf property. When issue in the suit is as to whether suit property is Wakf property or not it is covered by specific provision of Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995, hence, it is required to be decided by the Tribunal under Section 83 and bar under Section 85 shall come into existence with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court - The defendant having pleaded that suit property is not a Wakf property, the question has to be decided by the Tribunal. Thus, the High Court has committed error in allowing the revision petition. Thus, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Whether a suit within the meaning of Section 6 sub-section (1) or Section 7(1) is to be filed within a period of one year of publication of list of Wakfs under Section 5? - HELD THAT - The provision contained in proviso to Section 6(1) that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs shall be applicable to every person who though not interested in the Wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4 - When Section 6 sub-section (1) provides for raising a dispute regarding Wakf property in a period of one year, it applies to every person who wants to dispute the list except those who have been not served notice under Section 4(1). Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal vs. Civil Court in disputes involving Wakf property. 2. Applicability of the Wakf Act, 1995, and its amendments. 3. Specific cases of possession and injunction related to Wakf property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal vs. Civil Court: The primary issue in these appeals is whether the suits filed by the appellant before the Wakf Tribunal for possession and injunction were maintainable in the Wakf Tribunal or should lie only in a Civil Court. The High Court relied on the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf to conclude that the Wakf Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over disputes involving non-Muslims and that such matters should be decided by Civil Courts. The Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, including Sections 83 and 85, which outline the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal and the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction for matters required to be determined by the Tribunal. 2. Applicability of the Wakf Act, 1995, and its Amendments: The Supreme Court analyzed the amendments made to the Wakf Act, 1954, by the Wakf Amendment Act, 1984, and the enactment of the Wakf Act, 1995. The Court noted that the 1995 Act continued the statutory scheme of the 1954 Act, with specific provisions for the Wakf Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Court also referred to the explanation added to Section 6(1) of the 1995 Act, which clarifies that any person interested in the Wakf property can raise disputes within one year of the publication of the list of Wakfs, except those not served notice under Section 4(1). 3. Specific Cases of Possession and Injunction Related to Wakf Property: - Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2019 (Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike): The suit involved a dispute over whether the property was Wakf property. The defendant denied that the property was Wakf property, raising a question under Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The Supreme Court held that such a question should be decided by the Wakf Tribunal, and the High Court erred in allowing the revision petition and transferring the matter to the Civil Court. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. - Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2019 (Punjab Wakf Board vs. Teja Singh): The suit was for possession and injunction, which the High Court ruled should be decided by the Civil Court based on the precedent set in Ramesh Gobindram. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the suit for possession and injunction was not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. Separate Judgments: The Supreme Court delivered separate judgments for the two appeals. In Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2019, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, directing that the matter be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. In Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2019, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to transfer the matter to the Civil Court.
|
