High Court Kerala High Court

K.A. Kutty Moosa Haji vs Pushpi on 2 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.A. Kutty Moosa Haji vs Pushpi on 2 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 767 of 2005()


1. K.A. KUTTY MOOSA HAJI, AGED 68 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PUSHPI, AGED 46 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA WAKF BOARD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :02/11/2010

 O R D E R
               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
               P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
    ------------------------------------------------
             C. R. P. No.767 of 2005
    ------------------------------------------------
    Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010

                       ORDER

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

Under challenge in this revision filed under

Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act by the plaintiff is

the judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal,

Kollam dismissing a suit for recovery of plaint

schedule property from the first defendant in the

suit. The learned Tribunal under the impugned

judgment has upheld the plea of the first

defendant that the suit property belonged to her

absolutely on the date of the suit and accordingly,

dismissed the suit on merits. We notice the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh

C. R. P. No.767 of 2005 -2-

Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010

(3) KLT 862 (SC). According to us, in view of that

judgment, the present suit instituted by the

petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of possession of

Wakf Property asserting the property to be Wakf

Property cannot be maintained by the Wakf

Tribunal. In other words, the impugned judgment

can be sustained on that short reason without

examining the correctness of the finding by the

learned Tribunal on the question whether the first

defendant is having title or not. Modifying the

impugned judgment to that extent, we sustain the

judgment dismissing the suit holding that the suit

is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra

C. R. P. No.767 of 2005 -3-

Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010(3) KLT 862 (SC).

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

P. S. GOPINATHAN
JUDGE
kns/-