IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 387 of 2008()
1. ATHUTTI MOHIYUDDEEN PALLI SAMRAKSHANA
... Petitioner
2. L.K.KUNHABDULLA, S/O.AHMED HAJI,
3. P.MUSTHAFA, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
4. P.MUSTHAFA, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
5. K.M.ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI,
Vs
1. ATHUTTI MOHIYUDDEEN PALLI SAMRAKSHANA
... Respondent
2. N.M.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED,
3. N.SHAHUL HAMEED MOULAVI,
4. THE KERALA WAKF BOARD, NEAR JAWAHARLAL
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM
For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
...............................................................................
C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008
.........................................................................
Dated this the 3rd November, 2009
O R D E R
P.R. Raman, J:
Athutti Mohiyudheen Palli Samrakshana Committee
represented by L .K. Kunhabdulla,styled himself as the President,
and others are the petitioners in both the Civil Revision
Petitions. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 387 of 2009 is the very
same Committee, as mentioned above, represented by N.M.
Abdul Razak. Both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a
common order passed in I.A.No. 1047 of 2007 in O.S.No. 38
of 2007 and I.A.No. 1138 of 2007 in O.S.No. 45 of 2007.
2. O.S.No. 38 of 2007 is filed by the respondent in C.R.P.
387 of 2008, whereas O.S.No. 45 of 2007 is filed by the
petitioners herein. Both the suits are for permanent prohibitory
injunction, seeking to restrain the other from obstructing the
C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008
2
management and administration of Madrassa. Temporary
injunction applications were also filed along with the Suits by
the respective parties, seeking to restrain others from causing
obstruction to the Management until disposal of the suit.
Evidently, both the plaintiffs in the respective suits were claimed
to be in the management. I.A.s were accordingly heard together
and disposed of by a common order, by which the Wakf Tribunal
allowed the application filed by the plaintiff in O.S.
38 OF 2007,(the respondent herein) and dismissed the interim
injunction petition filed by the petitioners herein. Hence these
Revision Petitions.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that the Tribunal did not consider the materials on
record in its entirety before forming any prima facie finding
regarding as to who was in management and administration of
the Madrassa. According to him, the alleged brake opening the
lock by the petitioners, as a result of which, the Madrassa was
not functioning for a short while, has influenced the mind of the
Court in rejecting the application for injunction filed by the
C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008
3
petitioners herein. According to him, the findings regarding the
alleged break opening the lock itself is contrary to the evidence
in the case.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel Shri R. Ramadas,
appearing for the respondents contended that the Court below
has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and the
documentary evidence produced in the case in arriving at a prima
facie finding as to who was in administration of the affairs of
the Madrassa. In so far as the finding cannot be characterised
as perverse, interference is not warranted in these revisions.
They also filed I.A.No.1269 of 2009 seeking to produce
additional documents to support the impugned order passed by
the Court below. But we do not think in the factual situation that
it is necessary to allow the said contention or to allow the said
petition seeking permission to produce the documents since the
Court below had no occasion to consider those documents while
passing the impugned order. Therefore, correctness or
otherwise of the order has to be decided based on the materials
available on record. It is open to the respondents, if at all they
C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008
4
support the case of the respondents, to produce it in the final
adjudication of the dispute between the parties in the Suit.
Therefore this I.A. is dismissed.
5. Now coming to the question as to whether the order
passed by the court below is liable to be interfered in these
Revisions, it has to be noticed as to whether the court below has
considered the cardinal principle, viz., the balance of convenience
and also prima facie case, while deciding the matter at the
interlocutory stage.
6. Both sides have produced voluminous documents in
support of their contention. Altogether 38 documents were
produced by the plaintiff in O.S.No.38 of 2007, whereas the
petitioners herein as plaintiffs in O.S. 45 of 2007 has produced
8 documents, besides Ext.C1 Commission Report and Ext.C2
Plan. To arrive at a finding as to who was in the
administration, the Tribunal has elaborately considered all these
documents. Reference was made to Exts. A24 to 30 electricity
bills, Ext.A31 receipt produced in O.S.No.38 of 2007 (to show
possession of the plaintiffs therein), Ext.A32 telephone bill,
C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008
5
Ext.A35 and 36 basic tax receipts issued in the name of the
President of Mohiyudheen Palli Samrakshana Committee and
Mohiyudheen Juma-ath Palli Committee respectively. Of course,
the name of the President is not mentioned in those documents.
Reference was also made to the General Body meeting held for
electing a new Committee and the resentment expressed by few
members belonging to the petitioners’ group expressing non co-
operation for the reasons stated in the letter issued which are
Exts. A14 to A16. Even though those letters are denied by the
petitioners herein, at this stage, it may not be necessary to
conclusively say whether or not such letters were issued by the
petitioners herein and the same will be considered in the Suit.
7. The prima facie case, as found by the Court below
cannot be interfered with at this stage. The documents, viz.,
electricity bill, receipt thereof as also the alleged election said to
have been conducted and the resentment expressed in the notice
(though to be accepted finally subject to the opportunity being
given to the other side in the final suit) would show that the
finding of the Tribunal is not perverse warranting interference
C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008
6
by this Court. However, since the purpose of evaluating the
evidence at this stage is only to find out the prima facie case,
detailed examination of these documents will have to be made
while answering the issues arising for consideration in the main
suit. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with
the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, we make
it clear that the observation and finding of the Court
below/Tribunal will be limited to the finding of the prima facie
case and the Tribunal will consider the entire matter de nova,
untrammeled by any of the observations made in the impugned
order, at the time of considering the main Suit.
The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMAN,
JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk