Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 362 (JHR)

Sheo Prasad Pandey v. Begam Saida Imam

2010-03-22

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2010
Order This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 17.3.1992 passed by Second Subordinate Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 119 of 1986 whereby and whereunder he rejected the prayer of the petitioner that suit is not maintainable in view of provision contained under Section 55(C) of Wakf Act, 1954. 2. It appears that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declaration that the lease deed executed in favour of petitioners defendants are forged and not binding on the opposite party. It further appears that after receiving notice, petitioners appeared in the learned court below and filed an application under Section 55(C) stating therein that plaintiff-opposite party are Mutawali of the Wakf and the property in dispute is a Wakf property, therefore, as per Section 6A of the Wakf Act, 1984, only Tribunal has power to decide the said dispute. It is further submitted that as per Section 55(C) of Wakf Act, 1954 learned court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 3. Learned court below, by impugned order rejected the aforesaid application, on the ground that suit has been filed for declaration that lease deed executed in favour of petitioners is forged and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Court below had further come to the conclusion that Tribunal constituted under Wakf Act has no power to determine and declare as to whether any instrument is forged or not. Accordingly, learned court below come to the conclusion that the suit is maintainable. 4. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, suit has been filed for declaration that lease deed executed in favour of defendants-petitioners is forged and not binding on the plaintiff-opposite party. Accordingly, learned court below come to the conclusion that the suit is maintainable. 4. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, suit has been filed for declaration that lease deed executed in favour of defendants-petitioners is forged and not binding on the plaintiff-opposite party. The power of the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1954 runs as follows: 6-A. Power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding wakfs-If, after the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Sec. 5 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 junsdiction in relation to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final: Provided that- (a) In the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of the State and published or purporting to have been published after the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, no such application shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of wakfs under sub-section (2) of Sec. 5; and (b) In the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of the State and published or purporting to have been published at any time within a period of one year immediately preceding the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, such an application may be entertained by the 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 re-open such question. 5. Section 55(C) bars the jurisdiction of civil court from entertaining any suit with respect to any dispute which requires to be determined by the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act. 5. Section 55(C) bars the jurisdiction of civil court from entertaining any suit with respect to any dispute which requires to be determined by the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act. Thus, from the plain reading of Section 6-A of Wakf Act, it is clear that Tribunal constituted under the said Act has no power to declare that any document and/or instrument is forged and not binding upon the parties under dispute. 6. Under the said circumstance, I find that there is no illegality, irregularity, as also there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order which requires any interference by this Court. 7. Thus, I find no merit in this Civil Revision. Same is hereby dismissed. 8. Before parting with this case, it is worth mentioning that Title Suit has been filed as back as in the year 1986. Under the said circumstance, learned court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.