Case: P. NAZEER ETC Vs. SALAFI TRUST &amp; ANR. ETC

appeal shall lie against any decision given by the Waqf Tribunal. Therefore, the learned senior counsel contended that the proviso to Sub--section (9) which confers a revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court, is meant to confer a jurisdiction narrower than the jurisdiction of an appellate Court. In the case on hand, according to the learned senior counsel for the appellants , the High Court appreciated the evidence independently and recorded findings on questions which were not even framed as issues by the Tribunal and that, therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is completely contrary to law. 12. While we agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Sub--section (9) of Section 83 is narrower than the jurisdiction that could have been conferred upon an appellate court, we do not think that the impugned order of the High Court suffers from the vice sought to be attributed by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. 13. Admittedly, the Mahal Committee which is appellant No.1 in one of the two appeals on hand, was plaintiff No.1 in O.S No.9 of 2004. In the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004, there was not even a whisper about the corporate status of the Mahal Committee. In the written statement filed by Salafi Trust, they raised a specific contention that plaintiff No.1 was not a legal entity and that it is an illegal association of certain individuals and that there was not even a pleading as to whether there were any bye--laws and as to how plaintiffs No.2 and 3 became the President and Secretary respectively. 14. Unfortunately, the Waqf Tribunal, in paragraph 17 of its Judgment held that plaintiff No.1 is a legal entity, entitled to sue and be sued. This was solely on the ground that plaintiff No.1 (Mahal Committee) was one of the Sakha units affiliated to a registered society by name Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen (KNM for short). 15. The aforesaid finding is completely contrary to law. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye--laws. The bye--laws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society. Under section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, every society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion. Even the Travancore--Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, which is applicable to parts of Kerala carries a similar provision in section 9. Therefore, unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye--laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye--laws support the institution of such a suit. 16. The Waqf Tribunal committed a gross illegality, first in not framing an issue about the status of the Mahal Committee and then in recording a finding as though the local unit of a registered society which is in enjoyment of affiliated status, was entitled to sue. Such an illegality committed by the Tribunal was liable to be corrected by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction and hence the fulcrum of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has to fall to the ground. 17. As a matter of fact, the Mahal Committee did not file any revision against the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal of the relief of declaration regarding the certificate dated 24.03.2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala State Waqf Board. In the plaint filed by the Mahal Committee in OS No.9 of 2004, they assailed the certificate, on the ground that the said certificate completely repudiated the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the Mahal Committee was in management and administration of the Masjid. In other words the appellants herein understood, and rightly so, that the certificate dated 24.03.2004 sought to dislodge their claim to be in management and administration of the mosque. Therefore, the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal, of the prayer for declaring the said certificate to be null and void was fatal to their claim. Yet the appellants did not choose to file a revision. Today they cannot take umbrage under the fact that in any case, the Tribunal found them to be in management and administration of the waqf. 18. Though the High Court did not put against the appellants, their failure to file a revision, we think it is a crucial fact which cannot be overlooked. This is for the reason that the document dated 24.03.2004 is a certificate of registration issued under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Once it is admitted that it was the first respondent namely the Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a waqf under Section 36 of the Act and once it is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 2 of their plaint in OS No.9 of 2004 that the mosque was constructed in a vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli. 19. Though Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants also invited our attention to certain other aspects in the impugned judgment, we do not think that we need to go into each of these issues when we are convinced that the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction correctly and justly.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. While we agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Sub--section (9) of Section 83 is narrower than the jurisdiction that could have been conferred upon an appellate court, we do not think that the impugned order of the High Court suffers from the vice sought to be attributed by the learned senior counsel for the appellants.13. Admittedly, the Mahal Committee which is appellant No.1 in one of the two appeals on hand, was plaintiff No.1 in O.S No.9 of 2004. In the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004, there was not even a whisper about the corporate status of the Mahal Committee. In the written statement filed by Salafi Trust, they raised a specific contention that plaintiff No.1 was not a legal entity and that it is an illegal association of certain individuals and that there was not even a pleading as to whether there were any bye--laws and as to how plaintiffs No.2 and 3 became the President and Secretary respectively.14. Unfortunately, the Waqf Tribunal, in paragraph 17 of its Judgment held that plaintiff No.1 is a legal entity, entitled to sue and be sued. This was solely on the ground that plaintiff No.1 (Mahal Committee) was one of the Sakha units affiliated to a registered society by name Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen (KNM for short).15. The aforesaid finding is completely contrary to law. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye--laws. The bye--laws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society. Under section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, every society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion. Even the Travancore--Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, which is applicable to parts of Kerala carries a similar provision in section 9. Therefore, unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye--laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye--laws support the institution of such a suit.16. The Waqf Tribunal committed a gross illegality, first in not framing an issue about the status of the Mahal Committee and then in recording a finding as though the local unit of a registered society which is in enjoyment of affiliated status, was entitled to sue. Such an illegality committed by the Tribunal was liable to be corrected by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction and hence the fulcrum of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has to fall to the ground.17. As a matter of fact, the Mahal Committee did not file any revision against the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal of the relief of declaration regarding the certificate dated 24.03.2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala State Waqf Board. In the plaint filed by the Mahal Committee in OS No.9 of 2004, they assailed the certificate, on the ground that the said certificate completely repudiated the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the Mahal Committee was in management and administration of the Masjid. In other words the appellants herein understood, and rightly so, that the certificate dated 24.03.2004 sought to dislodge their claim to be in management and administration of the mosque. Therefore, the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal, of the prayer for declaring the said certificate to be null and void was fatal to their claim. Yet the appellants did not choose to file a revision. Today they cannot take umbrage under the fact that in any case, the Tribunal found them to be in management and administration of the waqf.18. Though the High Court did not put against the appellants, their failure to file a revision, we think it is a crucial fact which cannot be overlooked. This is for the reason that the document dated 24.03.2004 is a certificate of registration issued under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Once it is admitted that it was the first respondent namely the Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a waqf under Section 36 of the Act and once it is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 2 of their plaint in OS No.9 of 2004 that the mosque was constructed in a vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli.19. Though Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants also invited our attention to certain other aspects in the impugned judgment, we do not think that we need to go into each of these issues when we are convinced that the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction correctly and justly.