JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. The present C.R.P. (Wakf) is directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24.08.2023 in W.O.S. No.430 of 2019, whereby the suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff in W.O.S. No.31 of 2015, renumbered as W.O.S. No.430 of 2019, seeking a declaration that Purchase Certificate No.456 of 1976 dated 10.05.1976 issued by the Land Tribunal, Paravoor in S.M. Proceedings No.1428/75 is null and void, and further praying for a direction to defendants 1 to 13 and 15 to 18, their assignees and successors-in-interest, to hand over possession of the plaint schedule properties, as well as for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees and successors-in-interest from alienating or encumbering the said property, has been dismissed. 2. The suit aforementioned was based on a premise that the first plaintiff is a Waqf registered with the Kerala State Waqf Board with Registration No.3172 /RA and the 2 nd plaintiff is its President. The Waqf has a property measuring 4 Acres and 23 cents of landed property in Sy.No.391/14 vide Patta No.1207 which is as per the pleadings included in the waqf register maintained by the Waqf Board. One Sri. Kunjumuhammed Moulavi was the Imam and Khatheeb of the 1 st plaintiff Jama-ath for a pretty long time. The Jama-ath had constructed a house in a 3 cents of land in the mosque compound for providing accommodation to the Khatheeb and family in which late Kunjumuhammed Moulavi and his family, earlier his father Ahamad moulavi and his family was permitted to reside and did not have any title or interest over the property as his status was only a Imam neither he was a Kudikidappukaran or cultivating tenant as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . 3. In the year 2007, the office bearers of the 1st plaintiff Jama-ath came to know that, out of the total extent of 4 Acres 23 cents of land, an extent of about 1 Acre comprised in Sy. No. 391/14 of Karumalloor Village (formerly Ayiroor Village) in Paravoor Taluk had been dealt with by late Kunjumuhammed Moulavi, by virtue of a purchase certificate by initiating proceedings under Section 72MM (7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and along with the then President and he said land was transferred in his name. No. 391/14 of Karumalloor Village (formerly Ayiroor Village) in Paravoor Taluk had been dealt with by late Kunjumuhammed Moulavi, by virtue of a purchase certificate by initiating proceedings under Section 72MM (7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and along with the then President and he said land was transferred in his name. Upon his death, devolved upon his legal heirs, who thereafter effected further transfers, ultimately resulting in respondent Nos. 10 to 13, 15 and 16 acquiring rights over the said property from the legal heirs of Kunjumuhammed Moulavi. In other words, the Kunjumuhammed Moulavi in those 72MM proceedings managed to obtain the purchase certificate in his name in the year 1976 in OA No.1428 of 1975 without issuing notice to the Waqf Board with whom the waqf was already registered since 1961. However the factum of the purchase certificate was not known at the relevant point of time ie., in the year 2007, gave a cause of action to the then President to submit OP No.100/2007 for taking a necessary action for recovery of the property. In those proceedings, the factum of the purchase certificate in 1976 in respect of 89 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.391/14 was revealed. Accordingly, a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Alappuzha bearing No.25 of 2008 under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was preferred to set aside the certificate of purchase No.456/1976 dated 10.5.1976 issued in OA No.1428/1975 in favour of late Kunjumuhammed Moulavi. Waqf Board also filed an application bearing IA No.13 of 2008 under Section 90 (3) of the Waqf Act, 1995 for declaring the purchase certificate to be null and void. 4. The learned Appellate Tribunal after hearing the matter in detail vide order dated 26.11.2009 set aside the purchase certificate and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Land Tribunal. 4. The learned Appellate Tribunal after hearing the matter in detail vide order dated 26.11.2009 set aside the purchase certificate and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Land Tribunal. The aforementioned order in Appeal was challenged by the affected party before this Court bearing in OP Nos.29/2010 and 23/2010 and vide order dated 29.9.2014, this Court was pleased to set aside the order of the learned Appellate Authority finding that the original order granting Pattayam passed in OA No.1478 of 1975 was rendered under the provisions of Section 72MM (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in pursuance of a joint application in Form J filed by the parties under Rule 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms (vesting and assignment) Rules, 1970 which was not appealable under Section 102 of the Act and further observed that the affected parties had two options to challenge the impugned patta in favour of late Kunjumuhammed Moulavi by filing a suit on the ground of fraud challenging the proceedings of the Land Tribunal or to place its contentions including the grounds urged before the Appellate Authorities in the motion made by the Waqf Board under Section 72MM (7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . 5. It is in that background that the plaintiff instituted Civil Suit W.O.S. No.31 of 2015, contending that the pattayam obtained by Kunjumuhammed Moulavi in O.A. No.1428 of 2017 was vitiated by fraud and liable to be set aside, on the ground that he was only the Imam and Khateeb of the mosque under the 1 st plaintiff Jama-ath and was never a cultivating tenant. The property was registered with the Waqf Board and no notice was ever issued to the Waqf Board. The Managing Committee of the first plaintiff had no manner of proprietary rights over the property and, therefore, could not have suffered a statement in the proceedings under Section 72MM by transferring eighty nine (89) cents without the permission of the Waqf Board. 6. There was no authorization by the Jama-ath in favour of the then President to file any joint statement before the Land Tribunal. It was the duty of the Land Tribunal to ascertain whether the President was duly authorized or not but without verifying the same, accepted the statement and issued the purchase certificate. 6. There was no authorization by the Jama-ath in favour of the then President to file any joint statement before the Land Tribunal. It was the duty of the Land Tribunal to ascertain whether the President was duly authorized or not but without verifying the same, accepted the statement and issued the purchase certificate. At the time when the purchase certificate was issued, the Waqf Act, 1954 was in force, and as per Section 57 of the Act, it was mandatory for any authority, while dealing with the property of the Waqf, to issue notice of the proceedings to the concerned Waqf Board before passing any order whereas no such notice was issued to the Waqf Board. In proceedings for issuance of pattayam, in respect of a property, various formalities including enquiry by a Revenue Inspector and publication of notice in prescribed forms through different methods has to be complied with. 7. The aforementioned suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement raising the objections with regard to the maintainability, jurisdiction on the ground that owing to the purchase certificate, the property would not be falling within the definition of the waqf and therefore the Tribunal established under the Waqf Act would not have jurisdiction, the remedy lied before the Civil Court. The competency of the plaintiff was also assailed. It was asserted that the persons in the management of the mosque allowed late Ahamad Moulavi to cultivate the southern most two (2) Acres out of the 4.23 Acres and take the income in lieu of remuneration for the services rendered for the Jama-ath. He came into possession of the southern 2 Acres and started cultivation therein after clearing the land by removing the wild growth and planted coconut, arecanut trees, mango and other fruit bearing trees in the property apart from seasonal crops. After the death his son late Ahamad Moulavi, who came into possession of the said two Acres and the residential building, continued to render his services to the 1 st plaintiff Jama-ath as the Imam of the mosque. 8. Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1964 came into force conferring fixity of tenure on tenants which was amended by Act No.35 of 1969 which came into force on 1.1.1970 giving cultivating tenants the right to purchase the land owners' rights, under Section 72 B of the amended Act. 9. 8. Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1964 came into force conferring fixity of tenure on tenants which was amended by Act No.35 of 1969 which came into force on 1.1.1970 giving cultivating tenants the right to purchase the land owners' rights, under Section 72 B of the amended Act. 9. It is in that background a negotiation in the matter was taken up with regard to the surrender of the portion of the property to the 1 st plaintiff Jama-ath and accordingly in the General body meeting of the Jama-ath held on 13.6.1975 passed a resolution to measure and demarcate the property in the possession of late Kunjumohammed Moulavi with a further request to surrender the northern one Acre which is lying adjacent to the mosque compound of the 1 st plaintiff Jama-ath and after measurement, the property in his possession was found to be one (1) Acre and seventy eight (78) cents and not two (2) Acres. It is in that background, instituted OA No.1428 of 1975 on 31.7.1975 before the Land Tribunal under Section 72B of the Act for the entire one (1) Acre and seventy eight (78) cents of land. However, during the proceedings, a settlement was entered into by the then President, without authorization, whereby half of the property was surrendered to the Waqf and the remaining half to late Kunjumohammed, and accordingly, the proceedings were converted under Section 72MM (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . The factum of issuance of no notice to the Waqf Board was not disputed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues. 1) Whether the suit is maintainable? 2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties) 4) Whether the suit is hit by principles of resjudicata? 5) Whether the plaintiffs claim are barred by principles estoppel and acquiescence? 6) Whether the plaint schedule properties are waqf properties? 7) Whether late Ahmmed Moulavi and his son late schedule properties? Kunju Muhammed Moulavi were cultivating tenants of plaint schedule properties? 8) Whether plaintiffs have right, title and interest over plaint schedule properties? 9) Whether Purchase Certificate No.456/1976 dated 10.5.1976 issued by Land Tribunal, North Paravur is liable to be set aside? 7) Whether late Ahmmed Moulavi and his son late schedule properties? Kunju Muhammed Moulavi were cultivating tenants of plaint schedule properties? 8) Whether plaintiffs have right, title and interest over plaint schedule properties? 9) Whether Purchase Certificate No.456/1976 dated 10.5.1976 issued by Land Tribunal, North Paravur is liable to be set aside? 10) Whether S.M. Proceedings No.1428/1975 of Land Tribunal, North Paravur is vitiated by fraud and illegality and is liable to be declared as null and void? 11) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of possession of plaint schedule properties from the defendants? 12) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? 13) Whether defendant Nos. 10 to 13, 15 and 16 are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of any defect or infirmity in title of transferors? 14) Whether defendants perfected their title over plaint schedule properties and plaintiffs lost their right over plaint schedule properties by adverse possession and limitation? 11. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, answered only Issues No.6 and 10, holding that the property was Waqf; however, since it had culminated in a purchase certificate, it was held to be outside the purview of the Waqf Board, and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 12. Mr.K.Aanand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the proceedings under Section 72B of the Kerala land Reforms Act can be only initiated within a period of two years from the date of the vesting of the land, that proceedings could not have been initiated, for the reason that the property was already registered with the waqf in 1961. Relying on the aforesaid impediment, late Kunjumohammed and the then President committed fraud upon the Waqf by converting the said application into one under Section 72MM (3) of the Act, by suffering a joint statement and obtained the purchase certificate. At that time, the Act of 1954 was applicable and as per Section 36A any alienation of the waqf property without the sanction of the Board shall be void and similarly as per Section 57 of the Act, the notice of any suit or proceedings relating to the title or possession of the waqf property or right of the Muthawally or a beneficiary, is required to be issued to the Board at the behest of the party instituting such suit and proceedings. Both the aforementioned provisions of the law were applicable at the relevant point of time but not complied with. 13. The learned Tribunal has failed to address the findings on all the issues except the findings on issue Nos.6 and 10. Therefore there is an abdication. No reasoning has been assigned with regard to the non compliance of the provisions of Section 36A and 57 of the erstwhile Waqf Act, 1954 . Thus the findings of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, Sri.P.B Subrahmanian, learned counsel appearing for the LRs of the then Imam and the subsequent purchasers and Sri.K.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.10,12,13 and 15 submitted that the subsequent purchaser are the bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration in terms of the provisions of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioners have miserably failed to prove the necessary ingredients of fraud and misrepresentation. Authorization by the Muthwalli in favour of the President was valid. Therefore, the notice to the Waqf Board was not essential and necessary in the proceedings under Section 72 MM as it was on the basis of a joint statement. The suit is also barred by limitation, as despite the liberty granted by this Court to the petitioners to approach either forum, the suit came to be filed only after a delay of four years. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. On perusal of the suit number, it is evident that the order of this Court is of 2014, whereas the suit came to be filed only in 2015. Even otherwise, under the Act 1995, there is no limitation to assail the said transaction. Be that as it may, the question that arises before us is whether there has been compliance with the provisions of the Act under Sections 36A and 57 of the erstwhile Waqf Act, 1954 . The provisions of the Act reads thus: Section 36A. Even otherwise, under the Act 1995, there is no limitation to assail the said transaction. Be that as it may, the question that arises before us is whether there has been compliance with the provisions of the Act under Sections 36A and 57 of the erstwhile Waqf Act, 1954 . The provisions of the Act reads thus: Section 36A. (1) If the Board is satisfied, after making an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, that any immovable property of a wakf entered as such in the register of wakfs maintained under section 26, has been transferred without the previous sanction of the Board in contravention of the provisions of section 36A, it may send a requisition to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to obtain and deliver possession of the property to it. (2) On receipt of a requisition under sub-section (1), the Collector shall pass an order directing the person in possession of the property to deliver the property to the Board within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order. (3) Every order passed under sub-section (2) shall be served-- (a) by giving or tendering the order or by sending it by post to the person for whom it is intended ; or (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the order on some conspicuous part of his lastknown place of abode or business, or by giving or tendering the order to some adult male member or servant of his family or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the property to which it relates: Provided that where the person on whom the order is to be served is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon any adult male member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector under subsection (2) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order, prefer an appeal to the district court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and the decision of the district court on such appeal shall be final. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector under subsection (2) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order, prefer an appeal to the district court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and the decision of the district court on such appeal shall be final. Explanation.--In this subsection, "district court" means, in any area for which there is a city civil court, that court, and, in any other area, the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. (5) Where an order passed under sub-section (2) has not been complied with and the time for appealing against such order has expired without an appeal having been preferred or the appeal, if any, preferred within that time has been dismissed, the Collector shall obtain possession of the property in respect of which the order 121 has been made, using such force, if any, as may be necessary for the purpose and deliver it to the Board. (6) In exercising his functions under this section, the Collector shall be guided by such rules as may be made in this behalf by the State Government.] Mutawalli entitled to pay certain costs from income of wakf property. Section 57 : Notice of suits, etc., by courts. (1) In every suit or proceeding relating to a little to wakf property or the right of a mutawalli, the court shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. (2) Whenever any wakf property is notified for sale in execution of a decree of a civil court or for the recovery of any revenue, cess, rates or taxes due to the Government or any local authority, notice shall be given to the Board by the court, collector or other person under whose order the sale is notified. (3) In the absence of a notice under sub-section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the court in this behalf. (3) In the absence of a notice under sub-section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the court in this behalf. (4) In the absence of a notice under sub-section (2), the sale shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of the sale, applies in this behalf to the court or other authority under whose order the sale was held. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 16. Concededly, the question specifically raised at the behest of the petitioner/plaintiff has not been addressed by summoning the records of the competent authority to verify whether, by making a joint statement under Section 72MM of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1971, any notice was issued to the Board; for, the transfer of property registered with the Waqf in 1961 is not only void but necessarily requires the permission of the Board. Both these provisions have, in our considered view, been flouted with impunity, but this aspect, for reasons best known, has not been addressed by the Tribunal. This would be a sufficient ground for us to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication. As far as the other contentions are concerned, we are in agreement with the submissions of Sri. K. Anand that the Tribunal was enjoined with an obligation to adjudicate all the issues framed, when the parties to lis were at variance, but the adjudication has been confined only to Issue Nos. 6 and 10. This is also one of the reasons for not sustaining the order under challenge. 17. As far as the objection of limitation is concerned, prima facie we are of the view that this Court had granted the liberty to the petitioner in the revision petition preferred against the order of the appellate authority established under the Land Reforms Act for assailing the order of the competent authority assigning the rights/purchase certificate by relegating the appellant -petitioner to avail two remedies. The suit cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation as it was filed within four months. The suit cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation as it was filed within four months. Since we are remitting the matter, we would not be dwelling further on the merits of the matter, as it may take away the valuable rights of the parties to the lis. 18. Accordingly, the judgment under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the issue in view of the observations above and any of the points urged by the respective parties, in accordance with law. WOS No.430 of 2019 is restored to its original number. Though the parties have already led extensive oral and documentary evidence, we still grant two-two opportunities to lead any additional evidence or to seek amendment of the proceedings, in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall decide the matter within a period of six months. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13.10.2025.