IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.No. 767 of 2005(D) --------------------------- OS.1/2003 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- K.A. KUTTY MOOSA HAJI, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. ALIYAR, PEARI GARDENS, CHANDIROOR P.O., PRESIDENT, ARTHUNGAL CHENNAVELI, MUHAMMADIYA PALLI COMMITTEE, ARTHUNGAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------ 1. PUSHPI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. POLLAYIL EASUKUTTY, POLLIYIL VEEDU, ILLATHUPARAMBU, KUMBLANGI VAZHI, KOCHI-6. 2. KERALA WAKF BOARD, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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/-