IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.No. 1162 of 2005() ---------------------- WOS.40/2001 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFFS 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------- 1. MOHIYUDEEN, AGED 50, S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, PADIYATHU, MANAPPATTU HOUSE, KOTHAPARMBU, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. BASHEER, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, MUDAVAMKATTIL HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT AND 3RD PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------- 1. HASSAN, S/O. KUZHIKANDATHIL ABDHU, KOTHAPARAMBU, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. (DIED. Lrs. IMPLEADED) 2. SIDHEEQ, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, MUDAVAMKATTIL, KOTHAPARAMBU, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 3. JAMEELA W/O LATE K.A. HASSAN, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTHAPARAMBU, PIN - 680 668 4. BABU S/O LATE K.A. HASSAN, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O. KOTHAPARAMBU, PIN - 680 668 5. SAJITHA MUHAMMED ALI W/O MUHAMMED ALI, 50/395-B, MAMMALA ROAD JUNCTION, P.O.EDAPILLY, ERNAKULAM. 6. SABIRA HABEEB W/O MUHAMMED HABEEBULLA, PUTHANCHALIL, RAJEEV NAGAR ROAD, UNICHIRA, P.O. EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 BEING LRs. OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED IN THE CRP VIDE ORDER DT. 17-6-08 IN IA.1276/08 ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- CRP. No. 1162 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Gopinathan, J. Assailing a negative decree dismissing the suit W.O.S. No. 40 of 2001 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam for recovery of possession, this revision petition was preferred by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010(3) KLT 862 (SC). The learned counsel for the respondent would concede with the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Suit being one for recovery of possession, it is not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal. In the above circumstance, the judgment and decree under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam so as to enable the plaintiff to get the CRP.1162/05 -2- plaint returned and to re-present the same before proper court. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-