Case Summary
The plaintiffs, members of Hidayathul Islam Jamaath, sought injunction against the defendants, who administer the Jamaath. The court found it had no jurisdiction over the case as it involved waqf property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over waqf matters.
The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over waqf matters.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, this court is satisfied that the suit is not maintainable and is returned to be instituted in proper forum.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Yoonus (48 years years)
Maliyekkal House, Ponnarimangalam, Mulavukad P O, Ernakulam- 682504
Mohammed P T (65 years years)
Peediyeka Parambil, Ponnarimangalam, Mulavukad P O, Ernakulam- 682504
Anoob P M (37 years years)
Puthenthara, Ponnarimangalam, Mulavukad P O, Ernakulam- 682504
Haseeb K M (40 years years)
Kaithapola House, Ponnarimangalam, Mulavukad P O, Ernakulam- 682504
Habeeb Mohammed (71 years years)
Puthenthara House, Ponnarimangalam, Mulavukad P O, Ernakulam- 682504
Defendants
Hidayathul Islam Jama-Ath Committee (Age not specified years)
Ponnarimangalam, Mulavukad P O, Kochi- 682504
Shajahan V A (Age not specified years)
Ponnarimangalam, Mulavukad P O, Kochi- 682504
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to accept the monthly subscription from the plaintiffs and allow them to take part in the general body meeting.
Evidence:
Therefore, to allow the plaintiff to ignore the Waqf Tribunal and to seek a decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction from a civil court, would be ignore the mandate of section 83 and 85 which speak of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or a waqf property as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg’s case(supra).
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
To pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from convening the general body meeting without permitting the plaintiffs to attend.
Evidence:
In the result, this court is satisfied that the suit is not maintainable and is returned to be instituted in proper forum.