Kerala High Court
Kayalmadathil Kanavath Kammed vs Konnaloor Juma-At-Palli Committee on 5 June, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
C.R.P.(WAKF) No.39 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
C.R.P.(WAQF)NO.39 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2011 IN O.S.NO.2 OF 2011 OF THE WAKF
TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
KAYALMADATHIL KANAVATH KAMMED,
S/O.CHEKKUTTY,ANANDAVOOR AMSOM,KONNALLOOR
DESOM,KONNALLOOR(PO), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.K.RAVI PARIYARATH
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 KONNALOOR JUMA-AT PALLI COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,KAYALMADATHIL MOHAMEDUNNI
MASTER,S/O.MOHAMMED,ANANDAVOOR AMSOM, KONNALLOOR DESOM,
KONNALLOOR(PO),PIN-676102,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 KONNALOOR JUMA-AT PALLI COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KUMMALIL, KUTTIKATTIL SAIDALI,
S/O.ENI,ANANDAVOOR AMSOM,KONNALLOOR
DESOM,KONNALLOOR(PO),PIN-676102,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
3 KERALA WAKF BOARD
V.I.P.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER,PIN-682020.
BY ADV SRI.R.RAMADAS FOR R2
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
C.R.P.(WAKF) No.39 of 2012
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file
of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, which was one filed against the
respondents-defendants, seeking a permanent prohibitory
injunction restraining them and their men from trespassing into
the plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful
possession of the same by the plaintiff. On receipt of notice,
defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance before the Tribunal. The 2nd
defendant alone filed written statement raising a contention that
it is in possession of the plaint schedule property, which is covered
by a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram in S.M. proceedings No.1982/75. On the side
of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked.
On the side of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. The
Advocate Commissioner, who submitted Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2
sketch of the plaint schedule property, was examined as RW1.
After considering the rival contentions, the Waqf Tribunal, by the
impugned judgment dated 14.10.2011, dismissed O.S.No.2 of
2011, for the reasons stated therein. Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court in this Revision Petition,
invoking the provisions under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995.
2. On 09.07.2013, when this Revision Petition came up for
admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice
to the respondents.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff,
the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-defendants 1 and 2
and also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Waqf Board
for the 3rd respondent-3rd defendant.
4. The reasoning of the Waqf Tribunal in the impugned
judgment dated 14.10.2011 in O.S.No.2 of 2011, as contained in
paragraphs 18 and 19, reads thus;
"18. It is alleged by the plaintiff that while he was in
possession of the property he went to the property on
25.10.2010 for making a well as there was no well in the
property. Then the defendants obstructed him and
threatened that they will not allow him to enter in the
property. Hence the suit. Ext.C1 is the commission report.
Commission report prepared by DW1 would show that there
are two wells in the property. So the case of the plaintiff that
there is no well in the property and his attempt to construct
a well in the property for the purpose of improving the
property was obstructed by the defendant is seems to be
incorrect.
19. According to the defendant, in fact 2nd defendant
committee was in possession of the property as Wakf
property and they obtained purchase certificate with respect
of the property and paying tax. They produced Ext.B2 copy
of the purchase certificate, Exts.B3 and B4 tax receipts in
support of their contentions. During cross examination P.W.1
admitted that he knew about the issuance of Ext.B2 purchase
certificate in favour of the committee and he has not taken
any steps to set aside the same so far. Ext.B2 purchase
certificate was issued under section 72 of the KLR Act in
favour of 2nd defendant with respect to the property
comprised in re-survey No.215/9. There is no case for the
plaintiff that the property referred to in Ext.B2 to B4 and the
plaint schedule are different properties. On the contrary he
admits the property referred to in Ext.B2 is the plaint
schedule property. Once it is shown that the purchase
certificate was issued with respect to a property it can be
presumed that the person in whose favour the purchase
certificate was issued is in possession of the property.
Lakshmi v. Viswanathan [1999 (2) KLT 621 : 1999 (2)
KLJ 238]. Under section 72K(1) of Kerala Land Reforms Act
purchase certificate is a conclusive proof of assignment to
the tenant and the right, title and interest of the land owner
and the intermediaries if any. Therefore, considering the
entire evidence adduced in this case, I am of the view that
the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the plaint
schedule properties and cause of action to get a prohibitory
injunction against the defendants as claimed. Hence the
plaintiff is not entitled to get prohibitory injunction as claimed.
Issue are so found."
5. As already noticed hereinbefore, O.S.No.2 of 2011 was
one filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondents-
defendants seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining
the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint
schedule property and interfering with the peaceful possession of
the same by the plaintiff. A reading of the impugned judgment of
the Tribunal would show that the plaintiff failed to prove
possession of the plaint schedule property. Considering the nature
of issue involved in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction,
the Waqf Tribunal dismissed O.S.No.2 of 2011, when the plaintiff
failed to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property. In
that view of the matter, the Waqf Tribunal cannot be found fault
with, in dismissing O.S.No.2 of 2011, for the reasons stated in the
impugned judgment dated 14.10.2011.
6. In the result, this Revision Petition fails for the
aforesaid reason and the same is accordingly dismissed.
We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on
the rival contentions regarding Ext.B2 purchase certificate or
Exts.B3 and B4 land tax receipts. Those issues have to be
adjudicated in appropriate proceedings between the parties.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
MIN
