THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

C.R.P.NO. 422/2013 C/W

C.R.P.NOS. 343/2013, 344/2013, 345/2013, 346/2013, 403/2013, 404/2013, 405/2013, 406/2013, 407/2013, 408/2013, 409/2013, 410/2013, 411/2013

& 421/2013 C.R.P.NO. 422/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. Syed Abdul Azeez, S/o S.A. Khader, Aged major

Azeez Collections Shop no. 471, Ground floor, Mezzanine floor, Jumma Masjid road, Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner

(By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate) AND: Jumma Masjid Trust Board No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road,

Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates)

R

2

This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed in SC No.15259/2011 on the file of

V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Bangalore dismissing the IA No.3 filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC. C.R.P.NO. 343/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. Azmathulla S/o Abdul Gani, Aged about 27 years No. 123, First floor,

Golden Plaza, L.No.3 Street Cross, Meenakshi Koli Street Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner (By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate)

AND: Jumma Masjid Trust Board No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore-560 051

Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates)

This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed in SC No.15259/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Bangalore dismissing the IA No.3 filed U/O-VII, Rule-

10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

3

C.R.P.NO. 344/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. Suhail K.S. S/o K.S. Sadulla, Aged about 27 years No. 152, 2nd floor, Golden Plaza,

L.No.3 Street Cross, Meenakshi Koli Street Jumma Masjid Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner


Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates)

This petition is filed under Section 18 of

Karnataka Small Causes Act, Against the Order dated

05.07.2013 passed in SC No.15360/2011 on the file of

V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM,

Bangalore dismissing the IA No.3 filed U/O-VII, Rule-

10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

4

C.R.P.NO. 345/2013

BETWEEN:

1. Mrs. Zeba Shireen W/o Abrar Mathreen Aged about 30 years

2. M.Matheen S/o D.M.Iqbal

Aged about 45 years No. 110, ground floor, Golden Plaza, L.No.3 Street Cross, Meenakshi Koli Street

Bangalore-51. ... Petitioners (By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate) AND:

Jumma Masjid Trust Board No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent

(By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, Against the Order dated

05.07.2013 passed in SC No.15505/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Bangalore dismissing the IA No.4 filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

5

C.R.P.NO. 346/2013

BETWEEN:

1. Mrs. Zeba Shireen W/o Abrar Mathreen Aged about 30 years

2. Abrar Matheen S/o D.M.Iqbal

Aged about 45 years No. 146, IInd floor, Golden Plaza, L.No.3 Street Cross, Meenakshi Koli Street

Bangalore-51. ... Petitioners (By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate) AND:

Jumma Masjid Trust Board No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent

(By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of

Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order

dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.4 in SC

No.15374/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes

Judge and XXIV ACMM, Bangalore dismissing I.A.No.2

filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

6

C.R.P.NO. 403/2013

BETWEEN:

Mr. K.P.Umar, S/o K.P.Abubacker, Aged about 50 years Shop No. 139, first floor, Golden Plaza, L.No.3 Street Cross,

Meenakshi Koli Street Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner (By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate) AND: Jumma Masjid Trust Board No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent

(By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of

Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC No.15268/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore dismissing IA No.III the filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

C.R.P.NO. 404/2013

BETWEEN:

M/s G.S.Ramaswamy Chetty & Sons,

7

Mr. G.P.Srinivas, partner S/o G.P.Parthasarthy, Aged about 63 years No. 69/8, ground floor,

L.No.3 Street, Meenakshi Koli Street Cross, Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner (By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate)

AND: Jumma Masjid Trust Board No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman

Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates)

This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC No.15376/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore dismissing IA No.III the filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w

Section 151 of CPC. C.R.P.NO. 405/2013

BETWEEN:

Mrs. Shireen Taj, W/o Mohamed Najee Ullah, Aged about 31 years Shop No. 103 & 104, ground floor, Golden Plaza, L.No.3 Street

Meenakshi Koli Street Cross,

8

Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner (By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate)


Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of


dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC


Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore

dismissing IA No.III filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w

Section 151 of CPC.

C.R.P.NO. 406/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. T.A. Ameenulla, S/o Azmathulla, Aged about 51 years Shop No. 130, first floor, Golden Plaza,

L.No.3 Street Meenakshi Koli Street Cross, Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner (By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate)

9

AND: Jumma Masjid Trust Board

No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu

Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC

No.15262/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore dismissing IA No.III filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC. C.R.P.NO. 407/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. Mohammed Hafeez, S/o Mohammed Haneef, Aged about 47 years

Shop No. 133, first floor, Golden Plaza, L.No.3 Street Meenakshi Koli Street Cross, Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner


Bangalore-560 051

10

Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu

Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC

No.15267/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore dismissing IA No.III filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

C.R.P.NO. 408/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. Fazal Ahmed, S/o Abdul Azeez, Aged about 50 years No. 69/18, first floor, Golden Plaza,




11

This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC

No.15373/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore dismissing IA No.III filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

C.R.P.NO. 409/2013

BETWEEN: Mrs. Haseena Banu, W/o Hyder Ali Khan, Aged about 45 years No. 121, first floor, Golden Plaza,




This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC No.15260/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore

12

dismissing IA No.III filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

C.R.P.NO. 410/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. M.Abdul Rahman, S/o M.Fazlur Rahman, Aged about 52 years Shop No. 132, first floor, Golden Plaza,



Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of


dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC


Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore

dismissing IA No.III filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w

Section 151 of CPC.

13

C.R.P.NO. 411/2013

BETWEEN: Mr. Rafeequlla T.A,

S/o late A.T.Azmathulla, Aged about 48 years No. 69/9, ground floor, L.No.3 Street Meenakshi Koli Street Cross, Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner

(By Sri. SZA Khurshi, Advocate) AND: Jumma Masjid Trust Board

No. 11, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore-560 051 Represented by its Chairman Mr.Anwar Shariff ..Respondent (By Sri.Rahul Cariappa, Advocate for Kamal & Bhanu

Associates, Advocates) This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.II in SC

No.15375/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore dismissing IA No.II filed U/O-VII, Rule-10(1), R/w Section 151 of CPC.

C.R.P.NO. 421/2013

BETWEEN:

Mr. Afroz Pasha,

14

S/o Syed Abdul Khaliq, Aged about 38 years Shop No. 138, first floor, Golden Plaza,




This petition is filed under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Act, 1964, Against the Order dated 05.07.2013 passed on IA No.III in SC No.15269/2011 on the file of V-Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo hall unit, Bangalore.

These petitions having been heard and reserved,

coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

These revision petitions are directed against the

orders passed by the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore

15

rejecting the applications filed by defendants under

Order VII Rule 10(1) R/W Section 151 CPC.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths

S.Z.A Khureshi, learned Advocate appearing for revision

petitioners – defendants and Sri Rahul Cariappa,

learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Kamal and

Banu for respondent-plaintiff. Perused the order in

question as also the pleadings, interlocutory application

filed under Order VII Rule 10(1) read with Section 115

CPC and objections filed thereto. Parties are referred to

as per their rank in the trial Court.

3. It is the contention of Mr.Khureshi that

since Jumma Masjid Trust Board is registered as Wakf

under the Wakfs Act and as such the Court of Small

Causes at Bangalore has no jurisdiction in view of bar

under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. He would also

contend that since the properties belonging to the

plaintiff – Trust has been declared to be the Wakf

property, the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises

(Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974

16

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Public Premises Act’ for

brevity) would be applicable since suit schedule

property is a public premises as defined under Clause

(e) of sub-clause (v) of Section 2 of the Public Premises

Act. The bar contained in Section 16 of the Public

Premises Act would prohibit the Civil Court exercising

the jurisdiction. Hence, he contends that order of the

trial Court rejecting the application filed by the revision

petitioner – defendant seeking rejection of the suit is

erroneous and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

relied upon by the trial Court is inapplicable to the facts

on hand. Hence, he prays for allowing the revision

petitions.

In support of his submissions, he relies upon the

following judgments:

(1) SMT. JABEEN TAJ & OTHERS vs MASJID-E-PENSION MOHALLA, A WAKF INSTITUTION reported in ILR 2006 KAR 1146

(2) THE HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MYSORE & OTHERS reported in 1997 (5) Kar.LJ 493

17

4. Per contra, Sri Rahul Cariappa would

support the order passed by the trial Court and

contends that provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 nor the

provisions of Public Premises Act is attracted to the

facts of the present case inasmuch as, the plaintiff-

institution is being managed and administered by Trust

formed under a scheme framed by the District Court

and there is a marked distinction between Trust

property and the Wakf property and in the instant case,

the suit schedule properties being Trust properties, the

trustees are entitled to deal with the same and as such,

neither the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 nor the

provisions of Public Premises Act are applicable to the

facts on hand.

In support of his submission, he has relied

upon the following judgments:

(1) AHMED ADAM SAIT & OTHERS vs

M.E.MAKHRI & OTHERS reported in AIR 1964 SC 107

(2) MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF

WAKFS vs YUSUF BHAI CHAWALA & OTHERS reported in 2012(6) SCC 238

18

5. Having heard the learned Advocates

appearing for the parties, I am of the considered view

that following points would arise for my consideration:

(1) Whether the Small Causes Suits

filed by the plaintiff - Jumma

Masjid Trust Board were liable to

be dismissed or rejected on the

ground of bar of jurisdiction

contained in Section 85 of the

Wakfs Act, 1995 and Section 16 of

the Public Premises Act, 1974.

OR

Whether the properties managed

by the plaintiff Trust is to be

construed as a Wakf property or

Trust property?

(2) What order?

6. The plaintiff “Jumma Masjid Trust”

represented by its Chairman has filed suits against

defendants for the relief of evicting them from suit

schedule premises and also for arrears of rent and

19

mesne profits. Defendants have appeared and filed an

application to reject the plaint as the Court of Small

Causes, Bangalore has no jurisdiction in view of Section

85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Section 16 of Public

Premises Act. Said application came to be resisted by

the plaintiff and on contest, it came to be dismissed

with costs. Said order is questioned before this Court

by defendants.

RE: POINT NO.(1):

7. Along with statement of objections filed to

the main petition and application for rejection of the

plaint, defendants had filed gazette notification dated

07.06.1965, G.O. dated 20.01.2001, show cause notice

issued by the Karnataka Board of Wakf dated

06.01.2011 and reply submitted by plaintiff - Trust

dated 17.09.2010 contending interalia that suit

properties are declared to be Wakf property and as

such, under Section 85 of Wakf Act, Civil Court has no

jurisdiction. It was further contended that Section 16 of

the Public Premises Act would bar the jurisdiction of

20

the Civil Court to entertain any suit or legal proceeding

in respect of eviction of any person and no Court will

have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit or

proceedings in respect of eviction of any person who is

in unauthorized occupation of any “public premises”

or recovery of rent and as such, it was contended that

suit for ejectment filed before Small Causes Court was

not maintainable.

8. In order to examine the contention of learned

Advocate appearing for revision petitioners- defendants,

it would be necessary to extract relevant provisions

pressed into service which reads as under:

I. WAKF ACT, 1995

“85: Bar of jurisdiction of civil

courts:- No suit or other legal

proceeding shall lie in any civil

court in respect of any dispute,

question or other matter relating to

any wakf, wakf property or other

matter which is required by or

under this Act to be determined by

a Tribunal.”

21

II. KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974.

“2(e):- “Public Premises” means any premises belonging to or allotted to State Government or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State

Government and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of -----

(i) xxx (ii) xxx

(iii) xxx (iv) xxx (v) A Wakf, registered with

the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs.”

5:- Eviction of unauthorized occupants:- (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidence he may produce in

support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the competent officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the

competent officer may on a date to be fixed for the purpose, make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated by all persons who may be in

occupation thereof or any part

22

thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises.

(3) If any person refuses or fails to

comply with the order of eviction within forty-five days from the date of affixture of the order under sub-section (1), the competent officer or

any other officer duly authorised by the competent officer in this behalf may evict that person from and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be

necessary.” 16. Bar of jurisdiction:- No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is

in unauthorized occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or the damages payable under sub-section (2) of that section or the

costs awarded to the State Government or the Local Authority or the corporate authority under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs.”

9. A perusal of above provisions would indicate

that under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, Civil Court’s

jurisdiction is taken away in respect of any dispute,

23

question or other matters relating to Wakf, Wakf

property or other matter which is required to be

determined by a Tribunal under the said Act. Likewise,

Section 2(e)(v) of Public Premises Act brings within its

sweep a premises belonging to Wakf registered with the

Karnataka State Board of Wakfs within the purview of

Wakf Act and said premises will have to be construed as

public premises under the Public Premises Act. If it is

so construed, eviction proceedings of such occupants to

be treated as unauthorized occupants, proceedings will

have to be initiated under Section 5 of Public Premises

Act. A premises is declared to be “public premises” in

respect of premises belonging to or taken on lease by or

on behalf of Wakf registered under the Karnataka State

Board of Wakfs. If it is so construed, then, there would

be bar for any Court to entertain a suit or proceedings

in respect of eviction of such person who is in

unauthorized occupation of such public premises or

recovery of arrears of rent in view of Section16 ousting

jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a claim in that

regard.

24

10. In the background of analysis of above

statutory provisions, facts on hand are required to be

examined. It is not in dispute that in respect of the

properties belonging to Jumma Masjid, a scheme suit

had been filed before District Judge, Bangalore in

O.S.No.32/1924 and in the said suit, a scheme had

been framed in the year 1927. Pursuant to the said

scheme, trustees were appointed and they have been

managing the trust properties. Thereafter, an

application came to be filed by certain persons under

Order 1 Rule 10 and Sections 141 and 151 CPC

contending that they should be joined as parties to the

proceedings under the scheme and for other reliefs.

Said application was rejected by the District Judge on

20.07.1945. As such, said applicants filed a suit in

O.S.No.2/1947 praying for a fresh scheme being settled

for the proper administration of Jumma Masjid and its

properties by removing the trustees and praying for a

committee of New Trustees being appointed by

dissolving the old scheme. On contest it resulted in

25

dismissal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment

and decree, plaintiff filed an appeal to this Court. This

Court took the view that plea of resjudicata as opined by

the trial Court could not be sustained and agreed with

the trial Court that in law a scheme once settled should

not be lightly disturbed or modified but came to a

conclusion that for framing a new scheme it has to set

aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court

and accordingly remanded the matter to the District

Court for framing a new scheme. This judgment of the

High Court was challenged by the defendants therein

before the Hon’ble Apex Court and after considering the

rival contentions, the Hon’ble Apex Court was not

inclined to affirm the order of remand passed by the

High Court and as such reversed the same by modifying

the earlier scheme with modifications to clauses (iv), (v),

(xxiv) and (xxv). It was also made clear in the said

judgment that if in future any occasion were to arise for

changing or altering the terms of the scheme, it would

not be necessary to file a separate suit but the trustees

or any person interested in the trust may apply for

26

modification of the scheme to the District Court. Hence,

the order of remand passed by this Court was reversed

and respondent’s claim for modified scheme was

allowed to the extent of incorporating four clauses and

appeal came to be dismissed with the modifications

indicated therein. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court

as under:

“23. The next question xxxx of this

case. We have already referred to the fact that the High Court was satisfied that the scheme has worked, on the whole, satisfactorily. We have examined the 25 clauses of the scheme and have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in

regard to the modifications which these clauses may need and we are satisfied that if suitable changes are made in clauses (iv), (v), (xxiv) and (xxv), that would meet the requirements of justice and fair administration of the Mosque, its affairs and

its properties.” 11 The above facts would clearly indicate that

the properties vested in the Trust. As to the distinction

between Muslim Wakf and a Trust created by Muslims

came up for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS

27

vs YUSUF BHAI CHAWALA & OTHERS reported in

(2012)6 SCC 328 and it was held that dividing line

between Public Trust and Wakfs may be thin but the

main factor always is that while Wakf properties vests in

God Almighty the Trust properties do not vest in God

and trustees in terms of the deed of Trust would be

entitled to deal with the same for the benefit of the Trust

and its beneficiaries. It has been held by the Hon’ble

Apex Court as under:

“38. There is a vast difference between

Muslim Wakfs and trusts created by Muslims. The basic difference is that Wakf

properties are dedicated to God and the “Wakif” or dedicator does not retain any title over the Wakf properties. As far as trusts are concerned, the properties are not vested in God. Some of the objects of such trusts are for running charitable organisations such as

hospitals, shelter homes, orphanages and charitable dispensaries, which acts, though recognized as pious, do not divest the author of the trust from the title of the properties in the trust, unless he relinquishes such title in favour of the trust or the trustees. At times,

the dividing line between public trusts and wakfs may be thin, but the main factor always is that while wakf properties vest in God Almighty, the trust properties do not vest in God and the trustees in terms of deed of trust are entitled to deal with the same for

the benefit of the trust and its beneficiaries.”

28

12. In the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court as noted herein above when the facts on

hand are examined, it would indicate that a scheme suit

had been filed in O.S.NO.32/1924 and a scheme was

drawn by the Court relating to plaintiff-Trust. The said

scheme was sought to be undone by another group by

filing a fresh scheme suit in O.S.No.2/1947 after the

plaintiffs therein sought to get impleaded in

O.S.No.32/1924 was rejected by the District Judge on

20.07.1945. As noticed herein above, judgment and

decree passed by the District Court dismissing the suit

was pursued before this Court and an order of remand

came to be passed by this Court and in the Civil Appeal,

the Hon’ble Apex Court in AHMAD ADAM SAIT &

OTHERS vs M.E.MAKHRI & OTHERS reported in AIR

1964 SC 107 reversed the said order of remand by

concluding that the scheme framed in 1927 should be

left as it is with the modifications as has been indicated

in the judgment. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court as under:

29

“27. In the result, we reject all the

contentions raised by the appellants and confirm the findings recorded by the High

Court in favour of the respondents. We are, however, not inclined to affirm the order of remand passed by the High Court, because we have held that the scheme framed in 1927 should be left as it is with the modifications which we have indicated in our judgment. Therefore, the order of remand passed by the High Court is reversed and the respondents' claim for a modified scheme allowed. The appeal is dismissed with the above modifications. The appellants will pay the costs of the

contesting respondents throughout.”

(Emphasis supplied by me)

In other words, the scheme made in the year 1927 by

the District Court in OS.No.32/1924 stood affirmed

with modification of incorporating four clauses as

already referred to herein above. It is to be further

noticed that properties of the Trust continued with the

Trust and there was no Wakf created.

13. Even by virtue of notification issued by the

Karnataka State Board of Wakfs it would not take away

the scheme settled by competent Civil Court based on

proceedings initiated under Section 92 of CPC and said

30

proceeding would not abate. If the Wakf Board was

aggrieved by the decree passed in the scheme suit, the

Board was empowered to have the decree declared void

within one month of its knowledge regarding the decree.

There is no material on record to show that Wakf Board

was not aware of the decree. As such, it cannot be

accepted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is

ousted by virtue of the notification dated 02.06.1975

particularly when the Wakf Board has not taken any

steps in this regard. Though notification has been

issued under the Wakf Act, this Court cannot ignore the

fact that the scheme of management of plaintiff-Trust

approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court subject to

permitting the Trustees or any person interested in the

Trust for modification of the scheme before the District

Court, Bangalore would be a clear pointer to the fact

that the management of the properties belonging to

plaintiff-Trust continues to be vested with the Trust.

Undisputedly, even after issuance of the notification in

the year 1975 under the Wakf Act, the properties are

31

managed and administered by the Trust Board as

settled under the scheme of management.

14. It can also be noticed that in the Gazette

notification which has been produced by learned

Advocate appearing for revision petitioners-defendants

along with revision petition that under the heading

“Name, address and occupation of Mutavalli” it has

been indicated as “JUMMA MOSQUE TRUST BOARD”.

This would also indicate that property settled under the

scheme in favour of the Jumma Masjid Trust has

continued with the said Trust which is being monitored

by the District Court as directed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court and as such, the contention of Mr.Khureshi that

suit schedule premises is belonging to the Karnataka

Board of Wakf or it is a Wakf property and as such it

falls within the definition of “Public premises” as defined

under Section 2(e)(v) of Public Premises Act cannot be

accepted and it stands rejected.

32

15. In the light of discussion made herein above,

I am of the considered view that trial Court was fully

justified in dismissing the applications filed by the

defendants seeking rejection of the plaint and the

reasons assigned by the trial Court in its order that the

process of appointment of trustees, supervision and

administration of the Trust is being carried on by the

Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore as on today

requires to be affirmed.

16. Yet another factor which also requires to be

noticed is that the judgment passed in O.S.32/1924

settling the scheme relating to the plaintiff-trust has not

been questioned or challenged by the Karnataka Board

of Wakfs and it is not even a party to the scheme suit

which is being administered by the competent Civil

Court, at Bangalore. Hence, I am of the considered view

that order passed by trial Court rejecting the application

is just and proper and there is no material irregularity

in the said order calling for exercise of revisional

jurisdiction at the hands of this Court.

33

17. Hence, the following order:

(1) Revision petitions are hereby

dismissed.

(2) The orders passed by the trial Court

dismissing the applications filed by the

revision petitioners for rejection of the

plaint are hereby affirmed.

(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.

Sd/- JUDGE *sp

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND...

Documents

Transcript of THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND...