High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition in Wakf Property Dispute — Corrigendum and Gift Deed Held Binding on Plaintiff Masjid. The court upheld the Wakf Tribunal's order declaring that the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 and gift deed dated 24.12.1969 were not binding on the plaintiff under the Wakf Act, 1995.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 100
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present case involves a civil revision petition filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner, The Majalis-E-Intizamiya Masjid, represented by its President Dr. Khaleel Ahmed, challenged the order dated 17/06/2011 passed by the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga in O.S.No.12/2010. The respondent No.1, The Masjid-E-Peerpasha Quadri (Sunni), represented by its President Abdul Nabisab, had filed the suit before the Tribunal seeking a declaration that the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 and the gift deed dated 24.12.1969 were not binding on the plaintiff, along with a perpetual injunction or alternatively recovery of possession and costs. The respondent No.2 was the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the documents not binding. The petitioner, who was defendant No.1 before the Tribunal, sought to set aside that order and dismiss the suit. The High Court, after hearing the matter, dismissed the revision petition, thereby upholding the Tribunal's order. The judgment does not provide detailed reasoning or analysis beyond the procedural history and the final decision.

Headnote

A) Wakf Law - Wakf Tribunal Jurisdiction - Civil Revision Petition - Section 83(9) of Wakf Act, 1995 read with Section 115 CPC - The petitioner challenged the order of the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga Division, in O.S.No.12/2010, which had declared that the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 and gift deed dated 24.12.1969 were not binding on the plaintiff. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Tribunal's order. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal erred in passing the order dated 17/06/2011 in O.S.No.12/2010, and whether the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 and gift deed dated 24.12.1969 are binding on the plaintiff.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order dated 17/06/2011 passed by the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga in O.S.No.12/2010 is upheld.

Law Points

  • Wakf Act
  • 1995
  • Section 83(9)
  • Civil Procedure Code
  • 1908
  • Section 115
  • Wakf Tribunal jurisdiction
  • binding nature of corrigendum and gift deed
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (KAR) (01) 7

Civil Revision Petition No.1091 of 2011

2021-01-04

Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry

Sri F.V. Patil for petitioner; Sri. Ahmed Ali Rahiman Shah for R1; Sri. D.L. Ladkhan for R2

The Majalis-E-Intizamiya Masjid, Represented by its President, Dr.Khaleel Ahmed

1. The Masjid-E-Peerpasha Quadri (Sunni) Represented by its President, Abdul Nabisab S/o Gaibusab Chatni; 2. The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs Represented by its Chairman

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision petition against order of Wakf Tribunal in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding wakf property.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to set aside the Tribunal's order dated 17/06/2011 and dismiss the plaintiff's suit.

Filing Reason

Petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order declaring that the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 and gift deed dated 24.12.1969 were not binding on the plaintiff.

Previous Decisions

The Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga Division, passed an order on 17/06/2011 in O.S.No.12/2010 in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 and gift deed dated 24.12.1969 are binding on the plaintiff? Whether the order of the Wakf Tribunal dated 17/06/2011 is liable to be set aside?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Tribunal's order was erroneous and should be set aside. Respondents supported the Tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Wakf Tribunal's order, thereby upholding the declaration that the corrigendum and gift deed were not binding on the plaintiff.

Judgment Excerpts

The present petitioner was defendant No.1 and the present respondent No.2 was defendant No.2 in O.S. No.12/2010 before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga... This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Order dated 17/06/2011...

Procedural History

The plaintiff (respondent No.1) filed O.S.No.12/2010 before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga Division, seeking declaration that corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 and gift deed dated 24.12.1969 were not binding on it, along with injunction. The Tribunal passed an order on 17/06/2011 in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 (petitioner) filed the present civil revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Section 115 CPC challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the revision petition on 04/01/2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Wakf Act, 1995: 83(9)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Confirms Death Sentence for Domestic Help in Double Murder and Robbery Case. Circumstantial Evidence Including Motive, Last Seen Theory, and Recovery of Stolen Articles Held Sufficient to Sustain Conviction Under Sections 302 and 39...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging BIFR Order in SICA Reference — Holds That BIFR Cannot Reopen a Duly Sanctioned Scheme Without Jurisdiction Under Section 18 of SICA. The court quashed the BIFR order reopening a sanctioned scheme, ...