Madras High Court
Rahmadhunnisha Begam vs The Tahsildar on 23 August, 2023
C.R.P.(MD).No.2661 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2661 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11674 of 2018
1.Rahmadhunnisha Begam
2.Tmt.Sahitha Begam
Sahul Ameethu (Died)
3.Abdulkadhar Jeylani
4.Jarina Begam
5.Mohammed Husain
6.Kathijabeevi ... Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 6/
Plaintiffs
-vs-
1.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul West Taluk,
Dindigul District.
2.The Assistant Director,
Survey and Land Reforms Department,
District Collectorate Office,
Dindigul District.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Town Survey Scheme (Dindigul),
Dindigul Town,
Dindigul District. ...1 to 3 Respondents/7 to 9 Respondents/
1 to 3 defendants
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2661 of 2018
4.The Chief Executive Officer,
Wakf Board,
Chennai.
5.The Executive Officer / Administrative Officer,
Begampoor Mosque,
Dindigul Town,
Dindigul District. ...4 & 5 Respondents/ Petitioners/
4 & 5 Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.1688 of 2017 in O.S.No.304 of 2017, on the file of the Additional
District Munsif, Dindigul dated 27.07.2018 by allowing this revision petition
and issue appropriate orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
For R4 & R5 : Mr.G.Chandrasekar
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal
order dated 27.07.2018 in I.A.No.1688 of 2017 in O.S.No.304 of 2017, on the
file of the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2661 of 2018
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the
defendants 1 to 3 before the court below.
3. It appears that the petitioners have filed a suit for the relief of
declaration in respect of the scheduled mentioned property. After filing of the
suit, the defendants 4 & 5 have moved an application seeking to return the
plaint before the Wakf Tribunal as the scheduled mentioned property is the
Wakf property. In pursuance there of, the court below has allowed the
application and has directed the petitioners to present the plaint before the
Wakf Tribunal. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners/plaintiffs are
before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently
submit that only the portion of the property in S.F.No.389/D is a wakf
property, therefore, the very institution of the suit before the civil Court is
maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that even for
argument sake if the petitioner herein is not accepting the nature of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2661 of 2018
property as Wakf property, since the 6th defendant raised an issue that the suit
property is a Wakf property, then it is incumbent up on the Court to decide the
nature of the suit property whether it is a wWkf property or not. If that being
the case, the Wakf Tribunal is an appropriate forum.
6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side.
7. According the plaintiffs, it is an admitted case that the portion of the
property S.F.No.389/D of Dindigul Village is the Wakf property. However,
the respondents, namely, the Wakf Board as well as the Jamath contents that
the entire property is a Wakf property. Therefore, the real issue is whether the
suit property is Wakf property or not. The respondents would invite the
attention of this court in respect of Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The
relevant section is extracted hereunder:-
“85. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts:- No suit or other
legal proceeding shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any
dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf
property or other matter which is required by or under this Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2661 of 2018
to be determined by a Tribunal.
8. As per Section 85 of the Wakf Act, the Civil Court jurisdiction has
been barred in respect of any dispute or question or other matter relating to
any Wakf.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgment of Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari and others reported in
2022(4) SCC 414, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to
decide whether the suit property is a Wakf property, or not, the proper forum
would be Wakf Tribunal and not Civil Court.
10. Here, admittedly, the real issue exist in the present suit is whether
the suit property is Wakf property or not. Hence in view of the settled legal
proposition, the appropriate forum is the Wakf Tribunal. Thus, the court
below has rightly concluded and allowed the application filed by the
defendants so as to return the plaint to Wakf Tribunal. Hence, this Court could
not find any reason to interfere with the order of the court below. However,
considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, if in any case petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2661 of 2018
herein filing an application before the Wakf tribunal within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the limitation during which the
Civil Revision Petition is pending may be excluded as per section 14 of the
Limitation Act.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
To
The Additional District Munsif,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2661 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
am
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2661 of 2018
23.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
