P. NAZEER VS SALAFI TRUST Case
P. NAZEER VS SALAFI TRUST Case
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.31323133 OF 2016
P. NAZEER ETC. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Aggrieved by a common Judgment delivered by the High Court of
Kerala in two Civil Revision Petitions filed under the proviso to subsection (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, reversing the judgment
of the Waqf Tribunal and decreeing the suit of the respondents in
entirety, but dismissing their own suit, the appellants have come up
with the above civil appeals.
1
2. We have heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants and Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing
for the private contesting respondents.
3. The sole appellant in one of the above appeals by name
Shri P. Nazeer was the defendant in a suit O.S No.10 of 2004 filed by
the respondents 1 and 2 herein, on the file of Waqf Tribunal, Kollam.
The three appellants in the other civil appeal were the plaintiffs in O.S
No.9 of 2004 filed on the file of very same Waqf Tribunal, Kollam.
Since the appeals on hand arose out of crosssuits between the same
parties and also since the subject matter of the dispute relates to the
right to management and administration of a mosque and its
properties, it will be easy to appreciate the facts, if presented in a
tabular column:
Suit No. Names of of
Plaintiffs
Names of of
defendants
Reliefs
sought
Reliefs
granted by
Waqf
Tribunal
OS No.9
of 2004
1.Salafi Juma
Masjid Mahal
Committee
2. K.M. Syed,
President
3. P. Nazeer,
Secretary
1. Salafi Trust
2. H.E. Ahmed
Thahir Sait,
Vice President
3. A.K. Babu,
Secretary
4. O.M. Khan,
Salabhavan
i) pass a
decree
declaring that
the document
No.2 issued by
the 6th
Defendant is
1. The relief of
declaration was
rejected.
2. The relief of
permanent
injunction
granted
2
5. S. Rasheed,
Cashier
6. The CEO,
Kerala Waqf
Board,
7. Kerala
Waqf Board
null and void.
ii) Issue a
decree of
permanent
prohibitory
injunction
restraining the
Defendants
No.1 to 4 their
men, agents
and supporters
from
interfering into
or obstructing
the
management
and
administration
of plaint
schedule
mosque and its
institutions by
the Plaintiff
Committee.
restraining
defendants 1 to 4
from interfering
with the
management and
administration of
the plaint
schedule waqf
and its
institutions.
OS No.10
of 2004
1. Salafi
Trust
2. A.K. Babu
P. Nazeer (i) Declaring
that the 2nd
Plaintiff is the
Secretary of the
1
st Defendant
Trust.
(ii) Restraining
the Defendant
or anybody
under him by
permanent
injunction from
interfering with
1. Declaration
that the second
plaintiff A.K.
Babu is the
secretary of Salafi
Trust is granted.
2. But the relief
of permanent
injunction is
rejected.
3
administration
& management
of the 1st
Plaintiff Trust
and scheduled
property by the
2
nd Plaintiff
as the Secretary
of the 1st
Plaintiff.
4. It is necessary to bring on record, before proceeding further, that
document No.2 in respect of which the appellants herein sought a
declaration of nullity, in their own suit O.S No.9 of 2004, was a
certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Kerala Waqf Board
dated 24.03.2004 in favour of Salafi Trust. The said certificate reads
as follows:
“This is to certify that the Salafi Trust, Mattanchery, Cochin2 in Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District, Kerala State and its
properties having 17 cents comprised in Survey No.527/4
within the limit of Ambalappuzha Taluk Alappuzha District
have been registered before the Kerala Waqf board as
required under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995 being its
registration No.6406/RA. As per records of this office, Shri
A.K. Babu is the present secretary of the above Trust.”
5. In other words the appellants in the second civil appeal before
us, namely, (i) Salafi Juma Masjid Mahal Committee; (ii) its President
4
K.M. Syed; and (iii) its Secretary P. Nazeer, sought two sets of reliefs
from the Waqf Tribunal. They were (i) to declare the certificate dated
24.03.2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Waqf
Board in favour of Salafi Trust as null and void; and (ii) for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with
their management and administration of the mosque and its
properties. Though the Tribunal granted the relief of injunction, the
Tribunal refused the relief of declaration. However, these three
appellants did not choose to challenge the Judgment of the Waqf
Tribunal rejecting the relief of declaration.
6. Similarly the respondents 1 and 2 herein sought two sets of
reliefs from the Tribunal, namely, (i) for a declaration that the second
respondent A.K. Babu is the Secretary of the first respondentTrust
namely Salafi Trust; and (ii) for a permanent injunction restraining
Shri P.Nazeer, the Secretary of the Mahal Committee from interfering
with their right of management of the mosque. Though the Tribunal
granted the relief of declaration, it did not grant the relief of
injunction.
5
7. Therefore, (i) Salafi Trust; and (ii) its Secretary A.K. Babu filed
two civil revision petitions before the High Court of Kerala under the
proviso to Subsection (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The
High Court allowed both the civil revision petitions, dismissing O.S
No.9 of 2004 in entirety and decreeing O.S No.10 of 2004, as prayed
for. Therefore, the group which we may conveniently refer to as ‘Mahal
Committee’ has come up with the above civil appeals.
8. The case of the appellants before the Waqf Tribunal was: (i) that
Salafi Juma Masjid is a public waqf registered with the Kerala Waqf
Board; (ii) that though the mosque was constructed in a vacant plot
given by Salafi Trust, the management and the administration of the
waqf was with the Mahal Committee; (iii) that as per the law relating
to waqfs, the person who manages the waqf is the Mutawalli; (iv) that
upon a complaint lodged by the appellant Shri P. Nazeer on behalf of
the Mahal Committee, an enquiry was held by the Waqf Board; (v) that
though the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the management
and administration of Salafi Masjid was with the Mahal Committee of
which P. Nazeer was the Secretary, the Chief Executive Officer of the
6
Waqf Board wrongfully issued the certificate dated 24.03.2004; and
(vi) that, therefore, the said certificate should be declared as null and
void and a permanent injunction should be issued restraining Salafi
Trust and its men from interfering with the management and
administration of the mosque.
9. Interestingly, the Waqf Tribunal refused to declare the Certificate
dated 24.03.2004 as void, on the ground that undisputedly, Salafi
Trust got the waqf registered under Section 36 of the Waqf Act and
that admittedly Mr. A.K. Babu was the Secretary of the Trust. But the
relief of injunction was granted by the Waqf Tribunal on the ground
that the management and administration of the mosque and its
properties was with the Mahal Committee.
10. In the revision, the High Court found (i) that Mahal Committee is
not a registered entity and hence not entitled to file a suit; (ii) that the
suit was not even filed in a representative capacity after following the
procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC; (iii) that though the
challenge was to the management and administration of a mosque and
its immovable properties, there was no schedule of property attached
7
to the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004; and (iv) that as per the evidence on
record, it was the Salafi Trust which was in management and
administration of the mosque and its properties. On the basis of these
findings, the High Court decreed the suit filed by the respondents in
entirety and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants in full.
11. Assailing the order of the High Court, Shri R. Basant, learned
senior counsel contended that the High Court exceeded its revisional
jurisdiction and decided the lis as though it was a regular appeal.
Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh,
1
the learned senior counsel contended that wherever the statute
employed the expressions “appeal” and “revision”, the expression
“revision” is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction.
Subsection (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act declares that no appeal
shall lie against any decision given by the Waqf Tribunal. Therefore,
the learned senior counsel contended that the proviso to Subsection
(9) which confers a revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court, is
meant to confer a jurisdiction narrower than the jurisdiction of an
1 (2014) 9 SCC 78
8
appellate Court. In the case on hand, according to the learned senior
counsel for the appellants , the High Court appreciated the evidence
independently and recorded findings on questions which were not
even framed as issues by the Tribunal and that, therefore, the
impugned order of the High Court is completely contrary to law.
12. While we agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellants
that the revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Subsection
(9) of Section 83 is narrower than the jurisdiction that could have
been conferred upon an appellate court, we do not think that the
impugned order of the High Court suffers from the vice sought to be
attributed by the learned senior counsel for the appellants.
13. Admittedly, the Mahal Committee which is appellant No.1 in one
of the two appeals on hand, was plaintiff No.1 in O.S No.9 of 2004. In
the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004, there was not even a whisper about the
corporate status of the Mahal Committee. In the written statement
filed by Salafi Trust, they raised a specific contention that plaintiff
No.1 was not a legal entity and that it is an illegal association of
certain individuals and that there was not even a pleading as to
9
whether there were any byelaws and as to how plaintiffs No.2 and 3
became the President and Secretary respectively.
14. Unfortunately, the Waqf Tribunal, in paragraph 17 of its
Judgment held that plaintiff No.1 is a legal entity, entitled to sue and
be sued. This was solely on the ground that plaintiff No.1 (Mahal
Committee) was one of the Sakha units affiliated to a registered society
by name Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen (‘KNM’ for short).
15. The aforesaid finding is completely contrary to law. A society
registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and
be sued, only in terms of its byelaws. The byelaws may authorise the
President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend
a suit for and on behalf of the society. Under section 6 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, “every society registered under the Act may sue
or be sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary,
or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the
society and, in default of such determination, in the name of such
person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion”.
Even the TravancoreCochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable
10
Societies Registration Act, 1955, which is applicable to parts of Kerala
carries a similar provision in section 9. Therefore, unless the plaintiff
in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a
registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the
pleadings was authorised by the byelaws to do so, the suit cannot be
entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local
unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence,
unless the byelaws support the institution of such a suit.
16. The Waqf Tribunal committed a gross illegality, first in not
framing an issue about the status of the Mahal Committee and then in
recording a finding as though the local unit of a registered society
which is in enjoyment of affiliated status, was entitled to sue. Such an
illegality committed by the Tribunal was liable to be corrected by the
High Court under its revisional jurisdiction and hence the fulcrum of
the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has to
fall to the ground.
17. As a matter of fact, the Mahal Committee did not file any revision
against the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal of the relief of declaration
regarding the certificate dated 24.03.2004 issued by the Chief
11
Executive Officer of the Kerala State Waqf Board. In the plaint filed by
the Mahal Committee in OS No.9 of 2004, they assailed the certificate,
on the ground that the said certificate completely repudiated the
findings of the Enquiry Officer that the Mahal Committee was in
management and administration of the Masjid. In other words the
appellants herein understood, and rightly so, that the certificate dated
24.03.2004 sought to dislodge their claim to be in management and
administration of the mosque. Therefore, the rejection by the Waqf
Tribunal, of the prayer for declaring the said certificate to be null and
void was fatal to their claim. Yet the appellants did not choose to file a
revision. Today they cannot take umbrage under the fact that in any
case, the Tribunal found them to be in management and
administration of the waqf.
18. Though the High Court did not put against the appellants, their
failure to file a revision, we think it is a crucial fact which cannot be
overlooked. This is for the reason that the document dated 24.03.2004
is a certificate of registration issued under Section 36 of the Waqf Act,
1995. Once it is admitted that it was the first respondent namely the
Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a waqf under Section 36
12
of the Act and once it is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 2 of
their plaint in OS No.9 of 2004 that the mosque was constructed in a
vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go
against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli.
19. Though Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants
also invited our attention to certain other aspects in the impugned
judgment, we do not think that we need to go into each of these issues
when we are convinced that the High Court exercised its revisional
jurisdiction correctly and justly.
20. Therefore the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order to
costs.
…………………………….J.
(Hemant Gupta)
…………………………….J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
March 30, 2022.
13
Comments
Post a Comment