IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 24 of 2008()
1. K.SHIBISH, AGED 37, S/O.K.RAVINDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VAYALIL MALIYEKKAL JAMEELA,
... Respondent
2. KADAPPA MANNIL DINESH BABU,
3. K.BHARATHAN, AGED 66, S/O.K.PARUKKUTTY,
For Petitioner :SRI.SRINATH GIRISH
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :24/09/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
C.R.P.Nos.24, 97,121 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in these civil revision petitions is the
common eviction decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal in the suit
instituted by the respondents against the revision petitioners.
We notice the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh
Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf(2010 (3) KLT 862
(SC). The above decision is to the effect that suit seeking
eviction of tenants from properties, which are admittedly Wakf
properties, could be instituted only before the Civil Court and not
before the Tribunal.
2. Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that as the revision petitioners did not admit before
the Wakf Tribunal that the properties are Wakf properties, these
cases are not covered by the above judgment of the Supreme
Court.
3. Sri.G.Unnikrishnan, Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias and also
CRP.Nos.24/2008 & others 2
Sri.Srinath Girish, learned counsel for the revision petitioners
would submit in harmony before us that all the revision
petitioners admit the properties to be Wakf properties.
4. We record the above submission of the learned counsel
for the revision petitioners. We are of the opinion that the
properties are Wakf properties and that is why the Wakf Tribunal
was approached. Hence, we have no hesitation to conclude that
these cases are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court.
The result is as follows;
The judgment and decree under revisions are set aside.
The suit is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh
suit on the same cause of action. If fresh suit is filed within one
month from today, time during which the suit was pending
before the Wakf Tribunal and the time the revisions were
pending before this Court and a further period of one month will
be excluded from the reckoning for limitation under Section 14 of
the Indian Limitation Act.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk