ORDER : T. R. Ravi, J. 1. Heard Sri. K.M. Firoz appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri. Nirmal S., appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. T. K. Saidalikutty, appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 41 of 2015 before the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, with the following prayers; (i) Pass a decree declaring that the 1st defendant is not entitled to perform any act under the guise of the Manager and to interfere in the administration of the Kannavam Charitable Trust and the Meera Home for Girls in any manner; (ii) Pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering in any manner in the administration of the Kannavam charitable Trust and the Meera Home for Girls and from posing herself as the Manager of the plaintiff Trust; (iii) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to return all the records of the Trust and of the Meera Home for Girls to the second plaintiff and to grant such other reliefs which the plaintiffs may pray for from time to time and the Tribunal may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice. (iv) Order the 1st defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiffs. The Tribunal partly decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim that was preferred by the petitioner herein. 3. The 1st respondent is a Public Charitable Trust and has registered itself as a waqf before the Waqf Board. The dispute which has been raised does not relate to any waqf property. Going by the dictum laid down in Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike and another reported in 2019 (4) SCC 698 , the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal is limited to those aspects which are required to be decided by the Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act. A dispute regarding the right of the petitioner to be a Manager of an institution which is registered as a Waqf does not come under any of the provisions contained in the Waqf Act, which provide jurisdiction to the Tribunal. 4. A dispute regarding the right of the petitioner to be a Manager of an institution which is registered as a Waqf does not come under any of the provisions contained in the Waqf Act, which provide jurisdiction to the Tribunal. 4. The counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on the decisions in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P. V. Ibrahim Haji and others reported in 2014 (16) SCC 65 , Mechery Vijayakumar v. Kinassery Yatheem Khana and others reported in 2020 (2) KLT 46 and Darul Huda Masjid Mahallu Committee and others v. Kokkur Juma Masjid Committee and others (CRP No.262 of 2007) to contend that a suit for injunction relating to the management of the waqf property is maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal. Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee (supra) was considered elaborately by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Sham Singh Harike (supra) and in paragraphs 41 to 43 of the judgment, it has been held as follows: 41. In Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P. V. Ibrahim Haji, 2014 (16) SCC 65 , this Court again had occasion to consider S.83 and S.84 of the Wakf Act. The question which arose in the above case is whether the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration, management and peaceful enjoyment of the mosque and madarsa run by it and all the assets attached to the mosque. The appellant had filed suit for injunction before the Court of Munsif. It was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. The suit was decreed. Civil Revision was filed in the High Court challenging the decree of the Wakf Tribunal. The High Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal held that suit for injunction is not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram. The following was noticed in paragraph 3 of the judgment: "3. The respondents herein filed a civil revision petition as CRP No. 1362 of 2004 under S.83(9) of the Wakf Act before the Kerala High Court. The following was noticed in paragraph 3 of the judgment: "3. The respondents herein filed a civil revision petition as CRP No. 1362 of 2004 under S.83(9) of the Wakf Act before the Kerala High Court. The High Court vide its judgment dated 10/11/2010 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal holding that a suit for injunction is not maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf. The Court also granted permission to the appellant to take back the plaint for presenting before the appropriate Court. Later, the appellant preferred a review petition which was also dismissed by the High Court on 04/02/2011. The legality of the orders is under challenge in this appeal. "42. This Court disapproved the view of the High Court and held that suit was maintainable. Two - judge Bench has further observed that the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram later came up for consideration before this Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram was held to be distinguishable. The following was laid down by this Court in paragraphs 5 and 6: "5. The ratio laid down in the abovementioned judgment in Ramesh Gobindram case later came up for consideration before this Court in W. B. Wakf Board v. Anis Fatma Begum, 2010 (14) SCC 588 and the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram case was held distinguishable. That was a case where the dispute related to the wakf estate which was created by a registered deed of wakf dated 22/09/1936. The question raised was with regard to the demarcation of the wakf property, which this Court held is a matter which fell under the purview of the Wakf Act. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held otherwise was set aside and this Court held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide those disputes. 6. We are of the view that the dispute that arises for consideration in this case is with regard to the management and peaceful enjoyment of the mosque and madarsa and the assets which relate to wakf. Nature of the relief clearly shows that the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide those disputes. 6. We are of the view that the dispute that arises for consideration in this case is with regard to the management and peaceful enjoyment of the mosque and madarsa and the assets which relate to wakf. Nature of the relief clearly shows that the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide those disputes. We, therefore, find no error in the Wakf Tribunal entertaining OS No. 53 of 2003 filed by the appellant and the High Court has committed an error in holding otherwise. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the revision on merits. The appeals are disposed of as above, with no order as to costs." 43. The two - Judge Bench of this Court in the above case held the suit to be maintainable in the Wakf Tribunal and noted that the ratio of Ramesh Gobindram has been distinguished in Anis Fatima case. But as per ratio of Ramesh Gobindram unless there is any provision in the Wakf Act, 1995 to entertain the said dispute only then Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction, the suit filed for injunction was not maintainable in the above case. Thus, what is held in the above judgment by the two - Judge Bench is not in accord with the ratio of Ramesh Gobindram." xxxxxxxxxxxx 5. The Apex Court specifically considered the issue whether the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction relating to administration and management of a waqf and held in the negative. In the light of the judgment in Sham Singh Harike (supra), no reliance can be placed on the decision in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee (supra) any longer. 6. In Mechery Vijayakumar (supra), the Division Bench was considering a case wherein a suit was filed for eviction of a tenant from a shop room which belonged to a waqf. The Division Bench considered the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported in 2010 (8) SCC 726 and in Sham Singh Harike (supra) while considering the question whether the Waqf Tribunal had jurisdiction. The Division Bench held that the said decisions have no relevance and after the amendment of the Waqf Act in 2013, the Waqf Tribunal has been granted jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for eviction of a tenant. The Division Bench held that the said decisions have no relevance and after the amendment of the Waqf Act in 2013, the Waqf Tribunal has been granted jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for eviction of a tenant. The Division Bench went on to say that there is no prohibition for a Mutawalli to sue for eviction and arrears of rent since none of the provisions expressly or impliedly debar such an action. The above decision will not in any way support the contention put forward by the counsel. The issue before us does not relate to eviction of the tenant, but relates to day to day management of an institution under the wakf; not as a Mutawalli but as a Manager, in the status of an employee. 7. In Darul Huda Masjid Mahallu Committee (supra), we have considered the decision in Sham Singh Harike (supra) and have held that a suit for possession was not maintainable before the Tribunal and ought to have been agitated before the Civil Court. The counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 particularly relied on the fact that in the above said decision, this Court has granted a decree restraining obstruction to the management of the plaint schedule property. The decision in Darul Huda Masjid Mahallu Committee (supra) was rendered on a fact situation where this Court found that the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 166 of 2001 were in possession and management of waqf property and hence they are entitled to continue in such management. The said decision also will not in any way help the 1st and 2nd respondents to argue for the position that the Waqf Tribunal is empowered to decide on questions relating to the rights of Manager of a waqf property vis a vis the Management of the Wakf; i.e. the Committee in the status of a Mutawalli. 8. In the case on hand, as we have already found, none of the prayers relate to aspects which have to be decided by the Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act. Hence, we hold that the suit was not maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal. As a result, the revision petition is allowed and O. S. No. 41 of 2015 is dismissed as not maintainable. Since the petitioner has not challenged the decision in the counter claim, we are not called upon to make any observations on the same. Hence, we hold that the suit was not maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal. As a result, the revision petition is allowed and O. S. No. 41 of 2015 is dismissed as not maintainable. Since the petitioner has not challenged the decision in the counter claim, we are not called upon to make any observations on the same. The Wakf Tribunal is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation before the appropriate forum. The dismissal of the suit will not affect the rights of the 1st and 2nd respondents to initiate any legal proceedings against the petitioner to pray for appropriate reliefs before any appropriate forum. The parties will bear their respective costs.