S V CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL  [Appellant(s)]  Vs.  S.V P POOKOYA & ORS.  [Respondent(s)]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4629/2024 [@ SLP [C] NO.3182/2019]

(2JB, M.M. SUNDRESH and S.V.N. BHATTI JJ.)

Facts: On a revision being filed, the High Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the Waqf Tribunal inter alia holding that the Waqf Board did not have the jurisdiction and, therefore, the matter has to be decided afresh only by the Waqf Tribunal. Challenging the said decision, the present appeal is filed before us.

Issue: Whether the waqf tribunal can decide the issue of mutawalli?

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “we are inclined to hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the Waqf Board has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred under Section 32(2)(g) read with the definition under Section 3(i) which defines a ‘Mutawalli’. We have also perused Section 83 sub-Sections (5) and (7) of the Act which deals with the powers of the Tribunal. The Waqf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court having the same powers that can 3 be exercised by the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In other words, a dispute can be tried like a suit by the Waqf Tribunal. Under sub-section (7) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties and it shall have force of a decree made by a civil court.”

The court also observed that, “we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in relegating the matter to an adjudicating authority by treating it as a competent authority, which is none other than the Waqf Board. However, in the case on hand, the High Court did not go into the merits of the case. In such view of the matter, while setting aside the impugned order, we are remitting the matter to the High Court to decide the revision on merits, in accordance with law except the issue of jurisdiction as decided by us in this appeal.”