ORDER : 1. The defendants 1 to 3 in WOS No.114 of 2019 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode are the revision petitioners. 2. The brief facts for the disposal of the case are as follows:- Respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs approached the Wakf Tribunal seeking a declaration that the amendments brought to the bye-law of the 1 st defendant-Society is null and void and not binding on the members of the 1 st defendant – Society and for consequential reliefs. The 1 st defendant is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 herein approached the Wakf Tribunal on the pretext that the 1 st defendant – Society, which is managing the Waqf, has no written bye-law. During 2015-16, the 2nd plaintiff filed a rival list of office bearers before the District Registrar claiming that they are the office bearers of the Society and the said list was rejected by the District Registrar. Though the order of the District Registrar was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.18204 of 2015, the same was dismissed by judgment dated 16.02.2016. It is further alleged that certain amendments to the registered bye- law were made during the year 2016, which led to the filing of the suit. 3. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the amendments purportedly made in the year 2016 infringe the basic character of the Wakf. The religious supremacy of Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama was accepted in the original bye-law, but, by the amendment, the same was changed to Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama registered No.S1/1934-35 DRO Kozhikode. It was also made clear that if the supremacy of the aforesaid religious head is not accepted, such members would stand to lose the membership of the society, therefore, the plaintiffs approached the Wakf Tribunal challenging the amendments brought to the bye-law of the 1 st defendant – Society on 01.04.2016. 4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A16 were produced. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B16 were produced. PW1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs and DW1 on the side of the defendants. 4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A16 were produced. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B16 were produced. PW1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs and DW1 on the side of the defendants. The Wakf Tribunal by the judgment dated 09.06.2023, decreed the suit in part, by granting the 1 st relief in the suit, i.e. holding the amendments to the bye-law as specified in Ext.A4 (a) as null and void and not binding to the plaintiffs. Waqf Board was given liberty to conduct election to the Managing Committee, exercising its supervisory power. Other incidental reliefs sought in the suit were declined. Aggrieved by the judgment of the tribunal in decreeing the suit and granting the 1 st relief sought for in the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 have approached this Court with the present revision petition. 5. Heard Sri.R.Ramdas – the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri.P.A.Abdul Jabbar – the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and Sri.Jamsheed Hafeez – the learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board. 6. Sri.R.Ramdas – the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submitted that insofar as the Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act , 1860, is concerned, the Wakf Tribunal has no authority to declare the amendment caused to the bye-law as null and void. The amendments were made to the bye-law complying with the provision of Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act , 1860 and the amendments were duly approved by the Registrar of the Societies. The amendments to the bye-laws do not in any way infringe the basic religious rights of the plaintiffs, and further that the right of the committee to manage the Wakf is evident from a reading of Exts.A1 and B2 Wakf deeds. The intention of the Wakif as evident from Ext.B2 Wakf deed was not properly considered by the Wakf Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The right to become a member of the Mahal viz a viz a member of the Society is entirely different. Even if the member of the Mahal does not wish to become a member of the society, his membership remains unaffected. The right to become a member of the Mahal viz a viz a member of the Society is entirely different. Even if the member of the Mahal does not wish to become a member of the society, his membership remains unaffected. The purpose of the amendment is only to lay down certain criteria for the purpose of membership in the Society and it is perfectly open to frame conditions in the bye-laws for the purpose of restricting the membership to the Society. It is further contended that when the committee was duly elected in an election and had been approved by the Registrar of the Societies, the tribunal could not have directed the Wakf Board to conduct the election. While granting the aforesaid relief, the tribunal failed to notice that the plaintiffs have in the meantime started another Society in the name of “Hasaniya Islamic Service society” with Registration No.510/2004 and having thereon Wakf property. 7. On the other hand, Sri.P.A.Abdul Jabbar – the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, supported the findings of the tribunal and contended that the amendments are contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act as well as the provisions of the Wakf deed. It was further contended that the Society cannot prescribe conditions in such a manner so that the religious rights of the Mahal members are affected. He pointed out that the amendments now brought into effect create an unreasonable condition that unless the members owe allegiances to the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama registration No.S1/1934-35 DRO Kozhikode, they will not be granted membership in the Society and, therefore, the tribunal was justified in decreeing the suit in part and granting the 1st relief. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Halim v. Muhammed Basheer , CRP (Wakf) No. 719 of 2018 dated 24.09.2019. 8. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 9. Based on the facts as noted above, the point which arises for consideration is whether the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide a dispute qua administration of a society. It is pertinent to mention that the management of the Wakf is by the Society. 8. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 9. Based on the facts as noted above, the point which arises for consideration is whether the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide a dispute qua administration of a society. It is pertinent to mention that the management of the Wakf is by the Society. Therefore, the internal functioning of the Society cannot be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and it can only be in terms of the provisions contained under the Societies Registration Act , 1860. Necessarily, the crucial question which the tribunal failed to address was whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the challenge to the bye-law of the 1 st defendant. 10. It is an admitted fact that the 1st defendant is not the Wakf. It is only a Society which manages the Wakf and can be termed as muthawalli. The present dispute before the tribunal is not relating to the management of the Waqf but rather the amendment brought into the bye-laws of the Society. Therefore, necessarily, the dispute pertains to the functioning and administration of the society, which in terms manages the Wakf. It is explicitly clear that the dispute does not fall within the purview of the Wakf Act . If that be so, we failed to see how the suit could have been maintained before the Wakf tribunal. 11. On a perusal of the plaint it is seen that the same is filed under Sections 26 and 83 of the WAKF Act. We will now examine whether Sections 26 and 83 of the Wakf Act confer the Jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide the dispute arising out of the management of the society. Before considering the said question, it is apposite to extract the provisions of Sections 26 and 83 of the Wakf Act . “26. We will now examine whether Sections 26 and 83 of the Wakf Act confer the Jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide the dispute arising out of the management of the society. Before considering the said question, it is apposite to extract the provisions of Sections 26 and 83 of the Wakf Act . “26. Powers of Chief Executive Officer in respect of orders or resolutions of the Board.— Where the Chief Executive Officer considers that an order or resolution passed by the Board— (a) has not been passed in accordance with the law; (b) is in excess of or is an abuse of the powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act or by any other law; or (c) if implemented, is likely to— (i) cause financial loss to the Board or to the concerned waqf or to the [auqaf] generally; or (ii) lead to a riot or breach of peace; or (iii) cause danger to human life, health or safety; or (d) is not beneficial to the Board or to any waqf or to auqafs generally, he may, before implementing such order or resolution, place the matter before the Board for its reconsideration and, if such order or resolution is not confirmed by a majority of vote of the members present and voting after such reconsideration, refer the matter to the State Government along with his objections to the order or resolution, and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final.” “ 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 waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunals. (2) Any mutawalli person interested in a waqf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act, or rules made thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in this Act or where no such time has been specified, within such time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the waqf. (3) Where any application made under sub-section (1) relates to any waqf property which falls within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of two or more Tribunals, such application may be made to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the mutawalli or any one of the mutawallis of the [waqf] actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain, and, where any such application is made to the Tribunal aforesaid, the other Tribunal or Tribunals having jurisdiction shall not entertain any application for the determination of such dispute, question or other matter: Provided that the State Government may, if it is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of the waqf or any other person interested in the waqf or the waqf property to transfer such application to any other Tribunal having jurisdiction for the determination of the dispute, question or other matter relating to such waqf or waqf property, transfer such application to any other Tribunal having jurisdiction, and, on such transfer, the Tribunal to which the application is so transferred shall deal with the application from the stage which was reached before the Tribunal from which the application has been so transferred, except where the Tribunal is of opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice to deal with the application afresh. (4) Every Tribunal shall consist of— (a) one person, who shall be a member of the State Judicial Service holding a rank, not below that of a District, Sessions or Civil Judge, Class I, who shall be the Chairman; (b) one person, who shall be an officer from the State Civil Services equivalent in rank to that of the Additional District Magistrate, Member; (c) one person having knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence, Member; and the appointment of every such person shall be made either by name or by designation. (4A) The terms and conditions of appointment including the salaries and allowances payable to the Chairman and other members other than persons appointed as ex officio members shall be such as may be prescribed. (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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, or executing a decree or order. (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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, or executing a decree or order. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (7) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties to the application and it shall have the force of a decree made by a civil court. (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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (9) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal: Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit.” 12. A reading of Section 26 would show that the present dispute will not fall within the purview of Section 26 and therefore, what remains to be seen is as to whether the suit would be maintainable in terms of Section 83 of the Wakf Act . Turning to Section 83 , no doubt, it provides that, any dispute relating to the Wakf property, a suit would lie before the Wakf Tribunal. However, pertinent question is whether the dispute now raised falls within the definition of “dispute relating to wakf” (emphasis supplied). A reading of the relief sought in the plaint shows that the dispute raised in the plaint does not relate to the management of the Wakf property but the internal management of the Society which is managing the Wakf. The grievance of the plaintiffs appears to be regarding the imposition of certain conditions for applying for the membership of the society. The grievance of the plaintiffs appears to be regarding the imposition of certain conditions for applying for the membership of the society. The plaintiffs have cleverly tried to bring the dispute within the purview of Section 83 of the Wakf Act in the guise of questioning the validity of the amendment. 13. It must be remembered that even if the plaintiffs do not wish to become members of the society or for some reason become incapacitated from seeking membership of the society, even then their right to enjoy the Wakf property is not affected. Hence, it is clear that the dispute is not with regard to the management of the wakf property but rather the power to make amendments to the bye laws of the society. 14. We cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the wakf property is managed by a society registered under the provisions of the Society Registration Act 1860. Therefore any action of the society has to be judged within the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860. The trigger for filing the suit appears to be the amendment to the bye laws of the society. Therefore before finally deciding the Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal, we may have to decide on the entitlement of the plaintiff to question the resolution passed by the society which is the root cause of disagreement. In order to further understand the sensitivity of the issue presented before us it will be expedient if we look into certain provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860. Sections 12 , 15 and 18 of the Societies Registration Act read as under: “12. In order to further understand the sensitivity of the issue presented before us it will be expedient if we look into certain provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860. Sections 12 , 15 and 18 of the Societies Registration Act read as under: “12. Societies enabled to alter, extend or abridge their purposes Whenever it shall appear to the governing body of any society registered under this Act, which has been established for any particular purpose or purposes, that it is advisable to alter, extend, or abridge such purpose to or for other purposes within the meaning of this Act, or to amalgamate such society either wholly or partially with any other society, such governing body may submit the proposition to the members of the society in a written or printed report, and may convene a special meeting for the consideration thereof according to the regulations of the society; but no such proposition shall be carried into effect unless such report shall have been delivered or sent by post to every member of the society ten days previous to the special meeting convened by the governing body for the consideration thereof, nor unless such proposition shall have been agreed to by the votes of three-fifths of the members delivered in person or by proxy, and confirmed by the votes of three-fifths of the members present at a second special meeting convened by the governing body at an interval of one months after the former meeting.” “ Section 15: Member de For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations;” “Section 18- Such societies to file memorandum, etc. with Registrar of Joint-stock Companies In order to any such society as is mentioned in the last proceeding section obtaining registry under this Act, it shall be sufficient that the governing body file with the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies [***] a memorandum showing the name of the society, the objects of the society, and the names, addresses and occupations of the governing body, together with a copy of the rules and regulations of the society certified as provided in section 2, and a copy of the report of the proceedings of the general meeting at which the registration was resolved on.” 15. A conjoint reading of Sections 12, 15 and 18 undoubtedly shows that any decision of the society can be questioned only by a member of the society. No where in the plaint it is pleaded by the plaintiffs that they are the members of the society. If that be so, it is incomprehensible as to how the plaintiff’s can question the decision of the governing body to amend the bye-laws. 16. In Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. B.D. Kaushik , 2011 (13) SCC 744 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 12 of the Act and held that Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act , 1860 invests a society with the power to frame rules/regulations to govern the body of any society under the Act, which has been established for any particular purpose or purposes. In built in it is the authority to alter or abridge such power. If such a wide power is conferred including power to alter, amend or abridge the purpose itself, it could never be successfully contended that the power to amend, vary or rescind the rules does not exist in such society. 17. In the light of the categorical pronouncement of law by the Apex Court we are of the view that the Plaintiffs who are not members of the 1st defendant society have no locus to question the decision taken by the society to amend the bye- laws. 18. Even if we are to assume that the plaintiffs get right to question the amendment to the bye-laws framed by the society, the question would be whether the challenge is maintainable before the Wakf tribunal or the remedy lies elsewhere. 18. Even if we are to assume that the plaintiffs get right to question the amendment to the bye-laws framed by the society, the question would be whether the challenge is maintainable before the Wakf tribunal or the remedy lies elsewhere. We cannot remain oblivious of the fact that during the election for the year 2015-16, there were two lists submitted before the District Registrar and the District Registrar refused to accept the list submitted on the side of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff did not question the same, the rival claimants questioned the said action of the District Registrar, Malappuram, in W.P(C) No.18204 of 2015. By judgment dated 16.02.2016, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to espouse their cause before the civil court or other forum regarding mal administration of the Society. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder :- “It is to be noted that the power of the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act is very limited. The Society continues to be in a private domain, except to the limited extent of its activities regulated in the form of the Societies Registration Act to certain factors and measures. The grievance, especially, is related to mal- administration. This is a matter to be espoused before a civil court or such other forum. This Court cannot interfere with the affairs of the Society, as it is a private entity. Therefore, leaving open all other issues, the writ petition is dismissed.” 19. Turning to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Halim v. Muhammed Basheer , CRP (Wakf) No. 719 of 2018 dated 24.09.2019, it is evident that the Division Bench was called upon to consider restrictions placed on a bye-law by the Society disqualifying the members of the jama-ath, who are associated with two associations. While sustaining the judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam, this Court found that in terms of the provision contained under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, it permits any citizens to form association and therefore, restrictions placed in the bye-laws therein offended the provision of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and accordingly sustained the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal. 20. 20. On a close reading of the aforesaid judgment, we fail to comprehend as to how the same could be applied to the facts of the present case. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. In this case, no restriction is placed for seeking membership in the Society. Of course, it can be said that in order to enable a person to seek membership in the Society, he will have to owe allegiance to a particular religious sect. Even if it is assumed that such restrictions will fall within the mischief sought to be prevented under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, it would certainly qualify within the reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot fall back on Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India to contend that membership in the society should be automatic. 21. We must also take note of the submissions of Sri.R.Ramdas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, that the religious rights of the plaintiffs vis a vis the right to offer prayers, the right to avail the services of the religious heads, use of facilities in the mosque, or even the right to have burial in the Kabristan will not affected by the virtue of the restrictions brought under the bye-laws by virtue of these amendments. 22. In other words, the right to continue as a member of the Mahal thereby enjoying the benefits of the Wakf are in no way affected by the amendments to the bye-laws. What is intended is only to restrict the membership of the Society, which manages the Wakf. 23. Before parting with the case, we need to take note of one glaring defect that the tribunal failed to comprehend. Out of the majority of members, only three have joined the cause by filing the plaint. In the light of the specific assertions made by the defendants that the plaintiffs have started a parallel Society namely, Hasaniya Islamic Service Society, with Registration No.510/2004 and have their own Wakf property, the tribunal has failed to address these issues in the proper perspective. 24. We thus summarise our findings based on the discussion as above. a. The 1st defendant was perfectly justified in causing amendment to the bye law by the majority decision of the governing body. 24. We thus summarise our findings based on the discussion as above. a. The 1st defendant was perfectly justified in causing amendment to the bye law by the majority decision of the governing body. b. The plaintiffs being non members of the 1st defendant society do not have the locus standi to question the amendment brought to the bye law. c. The suit instituted before the Wakf tribunal questioning the amendment to the bye laws of the society is not maintainable. d. The religious rights of the plaintiffs should not affect in any manner by virtue of the amendments to the bye laws. We thus record the undertaking given by the Learned Counsel R Ramdas appearing for the Petitioners. e. The Tribunal was completely in error in entertaining the suit and deciding the dispute on merits as though the dispute pertains to the Wakf property as defined under Section 83 (1) of the Wakf Act . As an upshot of these findings, we are of the considered view that the Revision Petitioners are entitled to succeed. Hence, the Revision Petition is allowed. The Judgment and decree dated 09.06.2003 in WOS No.114 of 2019 on the file of Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode is set aside. Suit is dismissed as not maintainable. Cost made easy.