Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1089 (MP)

Anjuman Tanjimul Committee v. Mohd. Abdullah

2010-10-26

N.K.MODY

body2010
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.7.2006 passed by District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 18-B/2005 whereby the judgment dated 22.2.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Alot in civil suit No. 84-B/2003 whereby the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 21,000/- was dismissed, was set aside and decree was passed in favour of respondent alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 27.7.2003, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for relization of Rs. 21,000/- alleging that petitioner No.1 is the Committee constituted by petitioner No.2. It was alleged that respondent was appointed by the petitioner No.1 as Teacher vide order dated 1.3.2002 for parting with the education of Urdu @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. It was alleged that respondent was paid salary of two months i.e. for the month of March and April, 2002 but thereafter no amount was paid to the respondent. It was alleged that amount of Rs. 21,000/- was outstanding against the petitioners. It was alleged that since petitioner No.1 was under the control of petitioner No.2, therefore, decree be passed against the petitioners. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing the written statement wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that petitioner No.1 was having no authority to appoint Teacher. It was alleged that petitioners can be held liable for payment of salary of respondent. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit against which the appeal was filed by the respondent which was allowed and decree was passed against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submit that the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 was having no authority to appoint the respondent as Teacher. It is submitted that since appointment itself was illegal, therefore, petitioners cannot be held liable for' payment of decreetal amount. It is submitted that this aspect of the case has not at all taken into consideration by the learned Courts below while passing the decree. It is submitted that learned Courts below committed error in entertaining the suit itself as civil Courts was having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent. It is submitted that this aspect of the case has not at all taken into consideration by the learned Courts below while passing the decree. It is submitted that learned Courts below committed error in entertaining the suit itself as civil Courts was having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 no suit can be entertained by civil Court relating to Wakf or Wakf property. It is submitted that petition be allowed and impugned judgment passed by learned Court below be set -aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent was appointed by the petitioners for parting with the education of Urdu on payment of salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month and salary was also paid for the period of two months but thereafter no amount was paid. It is submitted that respondent has nothing to do with the fact that whether the petitioner No. 1 was having authority to appoint respondent or not It is submitted that since respondent was appointed and work was taken from the respondent, therefore, learned Courts below has rightly decreed the suit by the respondent. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that to prove the case respondent has adduced sufficient evidence whereby it is evident that respondent was appointed by the petitioner No.1 as Teacher. Section 85 of Wakf Act, 1995 deals with bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts, which lays down that 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. In the matter of Aliyathammada Beethaihabiyyapura Pookoya Haji v. Pattakkal Cheriyakoya, AIR 2003 Kerala 366, Keralal High Court held that Tribunal has jurisdiction not only on matters specified conferred on Tribunal by provision of Act but also on matter relating to Wakf or Wakf Property. In view of the aforesaid position of law the suit filed by respondent is not maintainable in the civil Court against the petitioner No.2. In view of the aforesaid position of law the suit filed by respondent is not maintainable in the civil Court against the petitioner No.2. However, so far' as petitioner No.1 is concerned, who has appointed the respondent on the post of Teacher, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing decree in favour of the respondent. In view of this petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part holding that suit filed by respondent is not maintainable against the petitioner No.2. So far as the decree passed by the appellate Court against the petitioner No.1 is concerned, is hereby maintainable. 6. With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed of.