AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The point for determination in this civil revision petition is as to whether the Tribunal constituted by the State Government
u/s 83(1) of the Wakf Act 1995 can entertain a petition filed by the members of the Jamath seeking for an order of permanent injunction restraining
the civil revision petitioners from interfering with the management committee and grant temporary injunction on the similar line pending the said
petition.
The civil revision petitioners are the respondents 1 and 2 in W.O.P.No. 2 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent. The respondents 2 to 5 in the
civil revision petition are the respondents in the said W.O.P. For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the civil revision petition.
The 1st respondent filed the said W.O.P. u/s 83(1) of the Wakf Act hereinafter called as ""the Act"" for a relief of permanent injunction against
the revision petitioners from interfering with the management of the committee. The said petition was filed on the averments that the Keelakarai
South Street Pallivasal Jamath is registered under the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board in G.S.No. 138/Ramnad. The said Jamath is supervised and
managed by 15 members elected in an election conducted by the election officer nominated by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The members so
elected will have a tenure of three years. As per the directions of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board dated 22.1.2000 for conduct of election to the 15
members of the Jamath, election was held on 23.3.2000 in the presence of the election officer nominated by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The
said election was approved by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board in its order dated 8.4.2000. Pursuant to the said election, the approved committee
took over the management of the Jamath and is managing the same, The said committee is entitled to hold the office for a period of three years
from 8.4.2000.
While that being so, the 1st and 2nd petitioners claiming themselves to be the Secretary and President of the Jamath respectively issued a paper
publication in ""Daily Thanthi"" on 26.12.2000 for conduct of the election to the managing committee on 16.1.2001. The said advertisement created
an apprehension in the mind of the members of the Jamath and public as if no managing committee is in existence for managing the affairs of the
Wakf. Therefore, it became necessary for the 1st respondent to file the said petition seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners 1
and 2 from interfering with the functions of the managing committee over the Jamath. Since the petitioners 1 and 2 also advertised in the daily paper
calling for election for the managing committee of the Jamath, the 1st respondent was also constrained to seek for temporary injunction in I.A.No.
6 of 2000 restraining the petitioners 1 and 2 from conducting the election. The said petition was entertained by the Tribunal and by order dated
13.1.2001 allowed the said application thereby restraining the civil revision petitioners from holding election. It is against the orders of the Tribunal
entertaining W.O.P.2 of 2001 and allowing the I.A.No. 6 of 2001, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would challenge the very proceedings pending before the Tribunal as outside
the scope of the powers vested in the Tribunal u/s 83(1) of the Act. The learned senior counsel would challenge the proceedings mainly on the
ground that the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain a petition with a relief of injunction u/s 83 of the Act since the Tribunal is only
deemed to be a Civil Court and not a Civil Court as such, since the relief does not relate to the Wakf or Wakf property and the same relates to the
management of the Wakf and election to managing committee of Jamath. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of
jurisdiction for the Tribunal to entertain such a petition, the entire proceedings pending in W.O.P.No. 2 of 2001 initiated by the 1st respondent are
liable to be set aside and consequently the temporary injunction granted by the Tribunal in I.A.No. 6 of 2001 is also liable to be set aside.
In support of the above submissions, the learned senior counsel would draw my attention to Section 83(1) of the Act which gives the powers to
the tribunal for determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property. u/s 83(5) of the Act, the Tribunal shall
be seemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as may be exercised by a Civil Court under the CPC 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying
a suit, or executing a decree or order. The learned senior counsel submitted that in view of Section 83(5), it is clear that the Tribunal shall be
deemed to be a Civil Court while trying a suit or executing a decree or order thereby indicating that the Tribunal is not a Civil Court. The power to
grant injunction vested with the Civil Court only under Order 39 of C.P.C. and in the areas enumerated u/s 41 of the Specific Relief Act. When the
provisions of Specific Relief Act are not made applicable to the Tribunals constituted u/s 83(1) of the Act, the petition filed for a relief of
permanent injunction shall be outside the scope of the powers of the Tribunal. Hence, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought
not to have entertained the petition filed by the 1st respondent seeking for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering in the
managing committee of the Jamath. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the powers and rights of the Tribunal is defined in
enumerated times under the Act. Since the Tribunals are empowered to adopt their own procedural aspects as contained in the C.P.C., the
Tribunal cannot have the substantive right conferred on the Civil Court under C.P.C. like the one for grant of permanent injunction. In view of
Section 83(5), the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court only and that too while trying a suit or executing a decree or order which would
necessarily mean that the Tribunal is entitled to follow only the procedural aspects prescribed under the CPC while trying the suit for executing the
decree or order and cannot have the substantive right to grant an order of permanent injunction or temporary injunction. The learned senior counsel
would also rely upon Section 86 of the Act which specifically provided a power to the Court where any suit or other legal proceedings are
instituted or commenced by or on behalf of the Board (i) to set aside the sale of any immovable property, which is wakf property in execution of a
decree or order of a Civil Court; (ii) to set aside the transfer of any immovable property, which is Wakf property, made by the mutwalli thereof,
whether for valuable consideration or not, without or otherwise than in accordance with the sanction of the Board; to recover possession of the
property referred to in Clause (1) or Clause (b) or to restore procession of such property to the mutwalli or the concerned Wakf; or where any
such suit or other legal proceedings is instituted by mutwalli to recover possession of immovable property which is Wakf property which has been
transferred by a previous mutwalli, whether for valuable consideration or not, without otherwise than in accordance with the sanction of the Board,
and which is in the possession of the defendant, the Court may, on the application of the plaintiff, appoint a receiver of such property and direct
such receiver to pay from time to time to the plaintiff, out of the income of the property, such amount as the Court may consider to be necessary
for further prosecution of the suit. By relying upon the said provision, the learned senior counsel would submit that whenever the legislature
contemplated for conferring specific powers either on the Tribunal or on the Board, they have done so as provided u/s 85(5) for the Tribunal to
follow the CPC trying a suit or executing a decree or order or for the Court to appoint a receiver u/s 86 of the Act when the above contingency
arise. The learned senior counsel would also rely upon Section 94 of the Act where a mutawalli is under an obligation to perform any act which is
recognised by muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the mutawalli fails to perform such act, the Board may apply to the Tribunal for an
order directing the mutawalli fails to perform such act, the Board may apply to the Tribunal for an order directing the mutawalli to pay to the Board
or to any person authorised by the Board in this behalf the amount necessary for the performance of such act and where a mutwalli is under an
obligation to discharge any other duties imposed on him under the Wakf and the mutawalli wilfully fails to discharge such duties, the Board or any
person interested in the Wakf may make an application to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. Placing
reliance on the above provisions, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of any provision for the Tribunal either to entertain an
application for permanent injunction or to grant temporary injunction restraining the third parties from conducting the election, the petition filed by
the 1st respondent would fall outside the scope of the powers of the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the same and
ought to have rejected the said application at the outset. u/s 51 of the Estates Abolition Act which is a parallel provision to Section 83 of the Act, a
Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Koil Kandadaki Channamarutham Vedanthachariswamy and four Ors. v. Raja Sir
Muthiah Chettiar and Anr. (1955)1 M.L.J. 229 and yet another judgment reported in K.S. Soosai Udayar and Anr. v. A. Andiyappa Ambalam
and Ors. (1959)1 M.L.J. 195 have held that the power to issue injunction shall vest with only the Civil Court. Similarly, the learned senior counsel
would rely upon a judgment of this Court reported in T.N. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Jagat Textiles, to point out the distinctions between a Civil Court
and a Tribunal. The learned senior counsel contended that when the powers of the Civil Court and the Tribunal are demarcated separately under
the Act, the Tribunal cannot entertain an application for which the Tribunal was not authorised to decide. Similarly, the learned senior counsel relied
upon the judgments of this Court reported in Ramaswamy Raja and Another Vs. Ellappa Gounder, and M.S. Ramachandra Sastrigal v.
Kuppuswami Vanniar 1974 L.W. 167 to contend that the powers of the officers under Cultivating Tenant Protection Act u/s 6-A and u/s 6-B are
restricted only with reference to the dispute arises under the Act and not for grant of injunction which would be exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil
Court. The learned senior counsel would also draw my attention to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in In re: State Transport
Authority and another 1992 C.P.J. 677 arising under the Consumer Protection Act wherein it has been held that the forum is not a Civil Court.
Likewise, the learned senior counsel would also rely upon a judgment reported in P. Sarathy Vs. State Bank of India, . which arose under the
provisions of Shops and Establishments Act to contend that the Civil Court and other authorities are entirely different and the Authorities under the
Act are governed by the powers conferred under the Act and not for grant of injunction. The learned senior counsel would also rely upon Sections
6(2), 7(2), 67(4), 69(3) and 70(1) and (2) to contend that the Tribunal was specifically excluded from granting interim stay in respect of special
matters thereunder. The power to grant an order of injunction much less an order of temporary injunction is not contemplated under any of the
provisions of the Act by conferring such powers on Tribunal. Therefore, for all the reasons the learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought
not to have entertained the W.O.P.No. 2 of 2001.
In adverting to the above submissions, Mr. K. Yamunan, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 83(1) of the Act does not
relate to only a dispute relating to Wakf property but it relate to any dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf or Wakf property. The
learned Counsel would further contend that the word ""any dispute in the said Section would mean that every or whatever dispute relating to Wakf
or Wakf property. The learned Counsel therefore submitted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction even to determine a dispute relating to grant of
injunction relating to Wakf. The learned Counsel would also submit that u/s 83(5), the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have
the same powers as may be exercised by the CPC while trying a suit or executing a decree or order. The word used while trying a suit would
include trying a suit for permanent injunction of the Tribunal u/s 83(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has got powers
only to follow the procedures prescribed under the CPC is correct inasmuch as Section 83(6) of the Act make the position clear wherein it has
been stated that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be
prescribed."" The learned Counsel therefore submitted that the power of the Tribunal is not limited to the provisions of the C.P.C. but also to follow
such procedure as may be prescribed. The learned Counsel submitted that the submission that the powers of the Tribunal is restricted only in trying
a suit or executing a decree or order in exercising the powers under the provisions of C.P.C. is also not tenable in view of the specific provisions of
Section 83(8) where the execution of any decision of the Tribunal shall be made by Civil Court to which such decision is sent for execution in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the powers of the Tribunal as contemplated u/s 83(5) is restricted only
to follow the procedure in trying a suit or execution of decree or order. By virtue of those provisions a Tribunal has got the powers as may be
exercised by a Civil Court under C.P.C. and the said provision shall not mean that the Tribunal shall not have the power to entertain a petition for
permanent injunction as the substantive right for the Tribunal to entertain such petition is on the basis of Section 83(1) of the Act.
The learned Counsel would also refer to Section 85 of the Act wherein it is provided that no suit or other legal proceedings 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. In view of the specific power of jurisdiction of Civil Court, the only remedy open to the 1st respondent is to
approach the Tribunal for the relief of permanent injunction u/s 83(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel would also submit that in view of the
provisions u/s 83(1)(5), and Section 85, the Tribunal has got the implied power to entertain a suit for permanent injunction and also to grant
temporary injunction which could be otherwise termed as a doctrine of implied power. The learned Counsel would further submit that Section 86
of the Act is a non-obstante Clause since the said power is conferred on the Court notwithstanding anything contained in the CPC or in any other
law for the time being in force. The learned Counsel would submit that the said provision is an indication that all powers of the Civil Court are also
available to the Tribunal. The learned Counsel would contend that it is not correct to say that by virtue of Section 86, the powers of the Tribunal
and Courts are separately demarcated. u/s 86 an additional power has been conferred on the Civil Court when a contingency enumerated u/s 86
arises. On the other hand Section 83 gives exhaustive powers to the Tribunal to entertain an application arising any dispute, question or other
matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The learned Counsel would further submit that the reference to Sections 6(2), 7(2), 67(4), 69(3),
70(1) and (2) restricting the Tribunal to grant any interim order of stay would indicate that the Tribunal has no power to grant stay only in those
specific instances thereby indicating that in all other matters the Tribunal can grant interim orders. In so far as the submission of the learned Counsel
for the petitioners with reference to the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners under Estates Abolition Act, City Tenants
Protection Act, Consumer Protection Act, Debt Recovery Act, etc., the learned Counsel submitted that the judgments have been rendered only
with reference to the powers conferred on the authorities constituted under the respective Act with reference to the areas of dispute which could
be entertained by those authorities. The learned Counsel would submit that those judgments may not be pressed into service on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of Sections 83(1), (5) and 85 of the Act which specifically empowers the Tribunal to entertain the petitioner
even for a grant of permanent injunction. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that those judgments are not applicable to a case under Wakf
Act. Hence, the submission on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are untenable and are liable to be
rejected.
On facts, the learned Counsel submitted that on the directions of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, an election was held to the managing committee
of the Jamath on 23.3.2000 wherein 15 members were elected. The election of 15 members to the managing committee of the Jamath was
approved by the Wakf Board on 8.4.2000. In disobedience to the said election and the approval, the petitioners claiming themselves to be the
Secretary and President of the Jamath respectively advertised in Tamil daily ""Daily Thanthi"" on 26.12.2000 for holding of election to the managing
committee of the Jamath on 16.1.2001. When there is an elected managing committee as approved by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, and the
attempt on the part of the petitioners to conduct a separate election, it became necessary for the 1st respondent to approach the Tribunal with a
relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the functioning of the managing committee of the Jamath. It also
became necessary for the 1st respondent to seek for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from conducting the election as notified in the
Tamil daily. Unless such an interim order is granted, the petitioners would hold the election and by virtue of the said election if any other members
are elected for the managing committee, a fresh dispute would arise as to the managing committee itself. Therefore only the Tribunal had granted
the temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioners in I.A.No. 6 of 2001. The learned Counsel therefore submitted that the civil revision
petition is unsustainable and is liable to be rejected.
I have heard in detail the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be useful to refer
to the relevant provisions of the Act relied upon by the respective counsel.
Section 3 : In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (q) ""Tribunal"", in relation to any area, means the Tribunal constituted under Sub-
section (1) of Section 83, having jurisdiction in relation to that area;
(r) ""Wakf"" means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by
the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes-
(i) a Wakf by user but such Wakf shall not cease to be a Wakf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser;
(ii) ""grants"" including mashrut-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as picous, religious or charitable; and
(iii) a Wakf-al-al-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognised by Muslim Law as picous, religious or
charitable, and ''Wakf'' means any person making such dedication.
Section 6: Disputes regarding Wakfs: (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakfs is
Wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shiv Wakf or sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the Wakf or any person
interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be
final:
Provided that on such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs. (2)
Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the
pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit.
Section 7: Power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding Wakfs: (1) If, after the commencement of this Act, any question arises, whether a
particular property specified as Wakf property in a list of Wakfs is Wakf property or not, or whether a Wakf specified in such list is a Shia Wakf
or a Sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the Wakf, or any person interested therein, may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relation
to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final:
Provided that--
(a) in the case of the list of Wakfs relating to any part of the State and punished after the commencement of this Act no such application shall be
entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the 1st of Wakfs; and
(b) in the case of the list of Wakfs relating to any part of the State and published at any time within a period of one year immediately preceding the
commencement of this Act, such an application may be entertained by Tribunal within the period of one year from such commencement:
Provided further that where any such question has been heard and finally decided by a Civil Court in a suit instituted before such commencement,
the Tribunal shall not reopen such question.
(2) Except where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of Sub-section (5), no proceeding under this Section in respect of any
Wakf shall be stayed by any Court, Tribunal or other authority by reason only of the pendency of any suit, application or appeal or other
proceeding arising out of any such suit, application, appeal or other proceeding.
Section 83: Constitution of Tribunals, etc: (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it
may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act and define the local
limits and jurisdiction under this Act of each of such Tribunals;
(5) The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as may be exercised by a Civil Court under the CPC 1908
(5 of 1908), while trying a suit, or executing a decree or order.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the CPC 1908 (5 of 1908), the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.
(8) The execution of any decision of the Tribunal shall be made by the Civil Court to which such decision is sent for execution in accordance with
the provisions of the CPC 1908 (5 of 1908).
Section 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.
Section 94: Power to make application to the Tribunal in case of failure of mutawalli to discharge his duties: (1) Where a mutawalli is under an
obligation to perform any Act which is recognised by Muslim Law as pious, religious or charitable and the mutawalli fails to perform such act, the
Board may apply to the Tribunal for an order directing the mutawalli to pay to the Board or to any person authorised by the Board in this behalf
the amount necessary for the performance of such act.
(2) Where a mutawalli is under an obligation to discharge any other duties imposed on him under the Wakf and the mutawalli wilfully fails to
discharge such duties, the Board or any person interested in the Wakf may make an application to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may pass such,
order thereon as it thinks fit.
The Tribunal as defined u/s 3(q) of the Act is constituted by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette as contemplated u/s
83(1) of the Act. Under the said Section, the Tribunal has power for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf or
Wakf property under the Act. The definition of Wakf as stated in Section 3(r) is referable to the permanent dedication by a person professing
Islam, of any immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim Law as pious, religious or charitable and includes such a dedication
by a person professing Islam. It also includes grants and a Wakf-al-al-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose
recognised by Muslim Law as pious, religious or charitable. The word ""Wakf"" has its origin in the Arabic Verb ''Waqafa'' meaning thereby ""to
detain"" or ''to hold or to tie-up.'' The Islamic concept of the word ''Wakf'' assumed a very significant application to any property, movable or
immovable, devoted in the name of Allah for religious, pious or charitable purpose and for the upliftment of the poorer Sections of the society. The
person creating a Wakf is called, ""waif as defined in Section 3(r) itself. Wakf deed means a deed of instrument by which a Wakf is created and it
includes subsequent deed by which any of the terms of the original dedication is varied. As per the author of the commentary on the Law of Wakf
in India Dr. Ahmedullah Khan, the types of Wakf and the Essentials of a valid Wakf are as follows:
Types of Wakf: Usually there are three types of Wakf recognised as under:
(i) Wakf by user
(ii) Wakf by Mushrut-ul-Khidmat
(iii) Wakf-al-al-aulad
(i) Wakf by user: Where any piece of land or portion of a building has been used permanently for any religious or pious purpose and the owner
had no objection to it or has an intention to allow to continue such practice then such Wakf is called as Wakf by user, example Mosque, Madrasa,
etc.
(ii) Wakf Mashrut-ul-khidmat is a public wakf where the Wakf has devoted the property for the general benefit of Muslim community and means a
grant stipulated for rendering services.
(iii) Wakf-al-al-aulad is that unique feature of Islamic law where a property is made Wakf for the welfare of the Wakfi''s own family or his children
or children of his children. It is called Wakf-al-al-aulad or Wakf for progeny. Essentials of a valid Wakf: The first essential condition for creating a
valid Wakf is that the declaration of dedication should be made contemporaneously with the act of dedication, the Wakif must divest himself of the
ownership of the property. Physical delivery of the property is not essential, but such possession as is possible must be given. The three essentials
of a valid Wakf are:
(i) Perpetuity.
(ii) Irrevocability.
(iii) Inalienability.
Wakf should be a Permanent dedication of property. Hence perpetual. A dedication being limited in time is not valid. Once a Wakf always a
Wakf. Hence irrevocable. It cannot be transferred or disposed off. Hence inalienable.
Similarly a contingent Wakf is also not valid. For example, if the Wakf is made contingent on the death of a person without leaving any children
behind, is void.
The Act does not define the Wakf property. However, whatever the property dedicated for the religious, pious and charitable purpose and for
the upliftment of the poorer section of the society by a Wakf shall be construed a Wakf property. On a reading of the definition of Wakf coupled
with types of Wakf, essentials of Wakf, it is manifestly clear that the word Wakf relates to the dedication of movable and immovable properties for
religious, pious and charitable purpose and for the upliftment of poorer Sections of the society by Wakf. As per Section 83(1) of the Act, the
Tribunal constituted by the State Government under a notification shall have the power for determination of any dispute, question or other matter
relating to a Wakf or Wakf property under the Act which would necessarily mean and to be understood that the powers of the Tribunal is
demarcated and limited only in respect of a dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf or Wakf property. The question to be considered
and decided is as to whether relating to the managing committee could be called as dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf or Wakf
property. As per Section 85 of the Act, no suit or other legal proceedings 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 the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The very fact
that provision u/s 85 barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the disputes enumerated the under would indicate that the Tribunal
would have the jurisdiction only in respect of the dispute, question and other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property or other matter which are
required by or under the act to be determined by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act and the said Section does not bar the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court to entertain a suit for permanent injunction of the nature that has been made in the petition before the Tribunal by the 1st
respondent. However, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that by virtue of Section 83(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has got
exhaustive powers to entertain any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf or Wakf property including a dispute relating to the
managing committee. It would be relevant to note that wherever the powers conferred on the Tribunal relating to disputes, question or other
matters, specific exclusion of the powers of the Tribunal in granting stay is also enacted in various provisions of the Act especially when, any
question arises whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakfs is Wakf property or not or whether a Wakf specified
in such list is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal
for the decision of the question u/s 6(1) of the Act. When such a suit is filed it has been indicated that notwithstanding anything contained in the
CPC under the Act in respect of any Wakf shall be stayed by pendency of any such suit or in appeal arising out of such suit. Similarly, u/s 7(1) of
the Act, if, after the commencement of the Act, any question arises, whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in a list of Wakf is
Wakf property or not, or whether a Wakf specified in such list is a Shia Wakf or a Sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the Wakf, or any
person interested therein, may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relation to such property, for the decision of the question. In such event,
by the reason of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 7, no proceedings under the Section in respect of any Wakf shall be stayed by any
Tribunal or other Authority or reason pending of any suit or appeal arising out of such suit, appeal or other proceedings. A reading of the above
provisions would indicate that wherever the legislature intended to specifically indicate that the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, shall not
grant stay of the Board''s proceedings, it has been provided so under the provisions of the Act. The Wakf Act is a complete Code by itself. The
Tribunal is constituted under the Act by the State Government under notification. The powers of the Tribunal are restricted only to the disputes
specifically referred in Section 83(1) of the Act to be adjudicated. u/s 83(1) of the Act, the Tribunal is empowered to determine the dispute,
question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property and not in respect of an application for permanent injunction as has been filed by the
1st respondent in W.O.P.No. 2 of 2001. In this context, the words ""or other matter which is required by or under the Act to be determined by the
Tribunal"" shall be referable only to Sections 6, 7, 76(4), 70(1) and (2) and Section 94. None of the provisions of the Act either expressly or
impliedly empowers the Tribunal to entertain, adjudicate upon and decide a petition for permanent injunction. Section 85 of the Act also does not
specifically bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit for injunction. Section 94 of the Act also empowers the Tribunal to issue direction
to mutawalli to pay to the Board or to any person authorised by the Board the amount necessary for the performance of such Act where mutawalli
who is under an obligation to perform any act which is recognised by Muslim law is pious, religious or charitable and the mutawalli fails to perform
such Act. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the word used ""any dispute"" shall also mean a dispute relating
to the managing committee of the Jamath and the word ""any"" used in Section 83(1) of the act shall mean every and whatever the dispute relating to
a Wakf and the said word ""Wakf does relate to the managing committee cannot be accepted, it is also to be noted that the power to order
injunction shall vest with the Civil Court by virtue of Sections 39 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. However, the learned Counsel for the
respondents contended that the Tribunal had inherent power to grant temporary injunction while entertaining an application for permanent
injunction. I am not inclined to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel since in the absence of any specific power under the Act, the
Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for grant of permanent injunction, as the power of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the
dispute is specifically enumerated under the Act. In the light of the provisions of the Act and in the absence of any power for the Tribunal to
determine the dispute as to the constitution of managing committee or the conduct of election to the managing committee, the petitions for
permanent injunction and temporary injunction filed by the respondent are not entertainable by the Tribunal. In the judgment reported in Koil
Kandadaki Channamarutham Vedanthachariswamy v. Raja Sir Muthiah Chettiar (1955)1 M.L.J. 229, a Division Bench of this Court while
considering the powers of the Tribunal constituted under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Rayatwari) Act 1948 in entertaining
an application of cross-objection has held that in the absence of any provision under the Act attracting the entire procedure laid down in the CPC
including the right to file objection does not arise and the right of the aggrieved person is restricted to an appeal u/s 51. The judgment of the
Calcutta High Court reported in In re: State Transport Authority and another 1992 C.P.J. 677, it has been held as follows:
Next comes the question of passing ad interim order by a Tribunal and interim order by a Tribunal. It is well settled, that unless a Tribunal, set up
under a Special Statute is vested with such power under the Statute itself, it cannot pass such an order, not can a Tribunal exercise the inherent
power as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, if such a Tribunal is not a Court. So far as the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is
concerned, the procedure to be adopted by a District forum on receipt of a complaint, is laid down in Section 13 of the said Act and Sub-section
(4) of the said Section 13 states that for the purpose of the said Section, the Forum shall enjoy the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters,
(i) the summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;
(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and
(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed, and same powers have been vested with the State Commission also as per the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act.
From the aforesaid provisions it is thus quite clear, that neither a District Forum nor the State Commission has been vested with any power under
the Consumer Protection Act 1986, to grant and/or pass any ad-interim order, not any of those Tribunals is a Civil Court so as to be deemed as
such to enjoy the inherent powers as embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure. Those Tribunals have been vested with only some limited powers
of a Civil Court as specifically stated in Sections 13 and 18 of the said act and as such, the said Tribunals cannot travel beyond their such limited
powers. Hence, the interim orders passed both by the President, Calcutta District Forum and the Chairman, State Commission are wholly without
jurisdiction.
In the judgment reported in M.S. Ramachandra Sastrigal v. Kuppuswami Vanniar 1974 L.W. 167, a Division Bench of this Court while
considering the power of Revenue Court in granting injunction has held that a Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to grant an order of injunction in
the absence of specific power under the Act. In the judgment reported in Ramaswamy Raja and Another Vs. Ellappa Gounder, it has been held
thus:
An injunction which is a preventive remedy, is granted by Courts under the specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no inherent
power in any Tribunal to grant an injunction unless the jurisdiction to grant it is expressly conferred by Statute and such a power cannot be
assumed by implication..... Hence, a Revenue Divisional Officer would have no jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining a Landlord form
entering his property. The tenant has always got his remedy in such cases to approach the Civil Courts for relief by way of injunction.
In the judgment reported in Ramaswamy Raja and Another Vs. Ellappa Gounder, it has been held thus:
An injunction is a specific relief and the jurisdiction to grant it should be conferred by statute. Now the question in the present case is whether the
Revenue Court acting under Act XXV of 1955 will have power to grant an injunction. The CPC does not wholly apply to that Court. It has
therefore to be seen whether, on the terms of the provisions contained in Act XXV of 1955, such a power exl sts in that Court. It is needless to
point out that a power to grant an injunction cannot be assumed to exist by any implication of law. The reason is that ordinarily it is the Civil Court
that will have the jurisdiction to grant an injunction. When a statutory Tribunal ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in regard to certain matters, it
has got to be seen whether the powers of the Civil Court in regard to injunction etc., have been abrogated and those powers have been expressly
conferred on the Special Tribunal.
In view of my above findings, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the grant of interim
injunction by the Tribunal is to do complete and full justice also. The Tribunal would have such power to do complete and full justice provided it
had jurisdiction to entertain an application for permanent injunction. In the absence of such power and in view of the fact that the very petition for
injunction itself is not maintainable, I am unable to agree with the above submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents to justify the grant of
temporary injunction in favour of the 1st respondent.
For all the above reasons, I do hold that the Tribunal constituted u/s 83(1) of the Act 1995 shall have no jurisdiction to entertain a petition
seeking for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering in their management of the Jamath and consequently granting
temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioners from holding the election is also unsustainable. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed
and the proceedings in W.O.P.No. 2 of 2001 pending on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/ Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram is quashed and
consequently the interim order of temporary injunction granted by the learned Wakf Tribunal/ Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in I.A.No. 6 of
2001, dated 13.1.2001 is also set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No. 2339 of 2001 is closed.