/2022 INSC 0243/
REPORTABLE 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.3132­3133 OF  2016
P. NAZEER ETC.                                …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC.  …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Aggrieved by a common Judgment delivered by the High Court of
Kerala   in   two   Civil   Revision   Petitions   filed   under   the   proviso   to   sub­
section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, reversing the judgment
of   the   Waqf   Tribunal   and   decreeing   the   suit   of   the   respondents   in
entirety,   but   dismissing   their   own   suit,   the   appellants   have   come   up
with the above civil appeals.
1

2. We have heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing
for   the   appellants   and   Shri   V.   Giri,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing
for the private contesting respondents. 
3. The   sole   appellant   in   one   of   the   above   appeals   by   name
Shri P. Nazeer was the defendant in a suit O.S No.10 of 2004 filed by
the respondents 1 and 2 herein, on the file of Waqf Tribunal, Kollam.
The three appellants in the other civil appeal were the plaintiffs in O.S
No.9   of   2004   filed   on   the   file   of   very   same   Waqf   Tribunal,   Kollam.
Since the appeals on hand arose out of cross­suits between the same
parties and also since the subject matter of the dispute relates to the
right   to   management   and   administration   of   a   mosque   and   its
properties,   it   will   be   easy   to   appreciate   the   facts,   if   presented   in   a
tabular column:
Suit No. Names   of   of
Plaintiffs Names   of   of
defendants Reliefs
sought Reliefs
granted   by
Waqf
Tribunal
OS   No.9
of 2004 1.Salafi Juma
Masjid   Mahal
Committee
2.   K.M.   Syed,
President
3.   P.   Nazeer,
Secretary 1. Salafi Trust
2. H.E. Ahmed
Thahir   Sait,
Vice President 
3.     A.K.   Babu,
Secretary
4.  O.M. Khan,
Salabhavan i) pass a 
decree 
declaring that 
the document 
No.2 issued by 
the 6 th
 
Defendant is  1.   The   relief   of
declaration   was
rejected.
2.     The   relief   of
permanent
injunction
granted
2

5.   S.   Rasheed,
Cashier
6.     The   CEO,
Kerala   Waqf
Board, 
7.     Kerala
Waqf Board null and void.
ii) Issue   a
decree   of
permanent
prohibitory
injunction
restraining   the
Defendants
No.1   to   4   their
men,   agents
and supporters
from
interfering   into
or   obstructing
the
management
and
administration
of   plaint
schedule
mosque and its
institutions   by
the   Plaintiff
Committee. restraining
defendants 1 to 4
from   interfering
with   the
management   and
administration   of
the   plaint
schedule   waqf
and   its
institutions.
OS   No.10
of 2004 1.   Salafi
Trust
2.  A.K. Babu     P. Nazeer (i) Declaring
that   the   2 nd
Plaintiff   is   the
Secretary   of   the
1 st
  Defendant
Trust.
(ii)     Restraining
the   Defendant
or   anybody
under   him   by
permanent
injunction   from
interfering   with 1.   Declaration
that   the   second
plaintiff   A.K.
Babu   is   the
secretary of Salafi
Trust is granted.
2.     But   the   relief
of   permanent
injunction   is
rejected.
3

administration
&   management
of   the   1 st
Plaintiff   Trust
and   scheduled
property   by   the
2 nd
  Plaintiff
as the  Secretary
of   the   1 st
Plaintiff.
4. It is necessary to bring on record, before proceeding further,  that
document   No.2   in   respect   of   which   the   appellants   herein   sought   a
declaration   of   nullity,   in   their   own   suit   O.S   No.9   of   2004,   was   a
certificate issued by  the Chief Executive Officer  of Kerala Waqf Board
dated   24.03.2004   in   favour   of   Salafi   Trust.   The   said   certificate   reads
as follows:
“This is to certify that the Salafi Trust, Mattanchery, Cochin­
2   in   Kochi   Taluk,   Ernakulam   District,   Kerala   State   and   its
properties   having   17   cents   comprised   in   Survey   No.527/4
within   the   limit   of   Ambalappuzha   Taluk   Alappuzha   District
have   been   registered   before   the   Kerala   Waqf     board   as
required   under   Section   36   of   the   Waqf   Act,   1995   being   its
registration   No.6406/RA.     As  per   records   of   this   office,   Shri
A.K. Babu is the present secretary of the above Trust.”
5. In   other   words   the   appellants   in   the   second   civil   appeal   before
us, namely,   (i)   Salafi Juma Masjid Mahal Committee;   (ii)   its President
4

K.M. Syed;  and   (iii)   its Secretary   P.  Nazeer, sought  two  sets of  reliefs
from   the   Waqf   Tribunal.   They   were   (i)   to   declare   the   certificate   dated
24.03.2004   issued   by   the   Chief   Executive   Officer   of   the   Kerala   Waqf
Board   in   favour   of   Salafi   Trust   as   null   and   void;   and   (ii)   for   a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with
their   management   and   administration   of   the   mosque   and   its
properties.   Though   the   Tribunal   granted   the   relief   of   injunction,   the
Tribunal   refused   the   relief   of   declaration.   However,   these   three
appellants   did   not   choose   to   challenge   the   Judgment   of   the   Waqf
Tribunal rejecting the relief of declaration.
6. Similarly   the   respondents   1   and   2   herein   sought   two   sets   of
reliefs from the Tribunal, namely,   (i)   for a declaration that the second
respondent   A.K.   Babu   is   the   Secretary   of   the   first   respondent­Trust
namely   Salafi   Trust;   and   (ii)   for   a   permanent   injunction   restraining
Shri  P.Nazeer,  the  Secretary  of  the  Mahal  Committee  from  interfering
with   their   right   of   management   of   the   mosque.   Though   the   Tribunal
granted   the   relief   of   declaration,   it   did   not   grant   the   relief   of
injunction.
5

7. Therefore,   (i)   Salafi   Trust;   and   (ii)   its   Secretary   A.K.   Babu   filed
two   civil   revision   petitions   before   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   under   the
proviso   to   Sub­section   (9)   of   Section   83   of   the   Waqf   Act,   1995.   The
High   Court   allowed   both   the   civil   revision   petitions,   dismissing   O.S
No.9  of   2004   in  entirety   and   decreeing   O.S   No.10  of   2004,   as  prayed
for. Therefore, the group which we may conveniently refer to as ‘Mahal
Committee’ has come up with the above civil appeals.
8. The case of the appellants before the Waqf Tribunal was:   (i)   that
Salafi   Juma   Masjid   is   a   public   waqf   registered   with   the   Kerala   Waqf
Board;   (ii)   that   though   the   mosque   was   constructed   in   a   vacant   plot
given   by   Salafi  Trust,   the   management   and   the   administration   of   the
waqf was with the Mahal Committee;   (iii)   that as per  the law relating
to waqfs, the person who manages the waqf is the Mutawalli;   (iv)   that
upon a complaint lodged by the appellant Shri P. Nazeer on behalf of
the Mahal Committee, an enquiry was held by the Waqf Board;  (v)  that
though   the   Enquiry   Officer   recorded   a   finding   that   the   management
and administration of Salafi Masjid was with the Mahal Committee of
which  P. Nazeer  was  the  Secretary, the   Chief  Executive  Officer   of  the
6

Waqf   Board   wrongfully   issued   the   certificate   dated   24.03.2004;   and
(vi)   that, therefore, the said certificate should be declared as null and
void   and   a   permanent   injunction   should   be   issued   restraining   Salafi
Trust   and   its   men   from   interfering   with   the   management   and
administration of the mosque.
9. Interestingly, the Waqf Tribunal refused to declare the Certificate
dated   24.03.2004   as   void,   on   the   ground   that   undisputedly,   Salafi
Trust   got   the   waqf   registered   under   Section   36   of   the   Waqf   Act   and
that admittedly Mr. A.K. Babu was the Secretary of the Trust. But the
relief   of   injunction   was   granted   by   the   Waqf   Tribunal   on   the   ground
that   the   management   and   administration   of   the   mosque   and   its
properties was with the Mahal Committee.
10. In the revision, the High Court found  (i)  that Mahal Committee is
not a registered entity and hence not entitled to file a suit;  (ii)  that the
suit was not even filed in a representative capacity after following the
procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC;   (iii)   that though the
challenge was to the management and administration of a mosque and
its immovable properties, there was  no schedule of property  attached
7

to the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004; and   (iv)   that as per the evidence on
record,   it   was   the   Salafi   Trust   which   was   in   management   and
administration of the mosque and its properties. On the basis of these
findings,   the   High   Court   decreed   the   suit   filed   by   the   respondents   in
entirety and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants in full.
11. Assailing   the   order   of   the   High   Court,   Shri   R.   Basant,   learned
senior   counsel   contended   that   the   High   Court   exceeded   its  revisional
jurisdiction   and   decided   the   lis   as   though   it   was   a   regular   appeal.
Relying   upon   the   Constitution   Bench   decision   of   this   Court   in
Hindustan   Petroleum   Corporation   Limited   vs.   Dilbahar   Singh , 1
the   learned   senior   counsel   contended   that   wherever   the   statute
employed   the   expressions   “ appeal ”   and   “ revision ”,   the   expression
“ revision ” is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction.
Sub­section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act declares that no appeal
shall   lie   against   any   decision   given   by   the   Waqf   Tribunal.   Therefore,
the   learned  senior  counsel  contended  that  the  proviso  to  Sub­section
(9)   which   confers   a   revisional   jurisdiction   upon   the   High   Court,   is
meant   to   confer   a   jurisdiction   narrower   than   the   jurisdiction   of   an
1   (2014) 9 SCC 78
8

appellate Court. In the case on hand, according to the learned senior
counsel   for   the   appellants   ,   the   High   Court   appreciated   the   evidence
independently   and   recorded   findings   on   questions   which   were   not
even   framed   as   issues   by   the   Tribunal   and   that,   therefore,   the
impugned order of the High Court is completely contrary to law.
12. While we agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellants
that the revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Sub­section
(9)   of   Section   83   is   narrower   than   the   jurisdiction   that   could   have
been   conferred   upon   an   appellate   court,   we   do   not   think   that   the
impugned   order   of   the   High   Court   suffers   from   the   vice   sought   to   be
attributed by the learned senior counsel for the appellants.
13. Admittedly, the Mahal Committee which is appellant No.1 in one
of the two appeals on hand, was plaintiff No.1 in O.S No.9 of 2004. In
the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004, there was not even a whisper about the
corporate   status   of   the   Mahal   Committee.   In   the   written   statement
filed   by   Salafi   Trust,   they   raised   a   specific   contention   that   plaintiff
No.1   was   not   a   legal   entity   and   that   it   is   an   illegal   association   of
certain   individuals   and   that   there   was   not   even   a   pleading   as   to
9

whether there were any  bye­laws and as to how plaintiffs No.2 and 3
became the President and Secretary respectively.
14. Unfortunately,   the   Waqf   Tribunal,   in   paragraph   17   of   its
Judgment held that plaintiff No.1 is a legal entity, entitled to sue and
be   sued.   This   was   solely   on   the   ground   that   plaintiff   No.1   (Mahal
Committee) was one of the  Sakha  units affiliated to a registered society
by name Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen (‘KNM’ for short).
15. The   aforesaid   finding   is   completely   contrary   to   law.   A   society
registered   under   the   Societies   Registration   Act   is   entitled   to   sue   and
be sued, only in terms of its bye­laws. The bye­laws may authorise the
President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend
a suit for and on behalf of the society. Under section 6 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, “ every society registered under the Act may sue
or be  sued  in the  name  of  President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary,
or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and  regulations  of  the
society   and,   in   default   of   such   determination,   in   the   name   of   such
person   as   shall   be   appointed   by   the   governing   body   for   the   occasion”.
Even   the   Travancore­Cochin   Literary,   Scientific   and   Charitable
10

Societies Registration Act, 1955, which is applicable to parts of Kerala
carries a similar  provision in section 9.   Therefore, unless the plaintiff
in   a   suit   which   claims   to   be   a   society,   demonstrates   that   it   is   a
registered   entity   and   that   the   person   who   signed   and   verified   the
pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be
entertained.   The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local
unit   or   a   Sakha   unit   of   a   registered   society   is   of   no   consequence,
unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit. 
16. The   Waqf   Tribunal   committed   a   gross   illegality,   first   in   not
framing an issue about the status of the Mahal Committee and then in
recording   a   finding   as   though   the   local   unit   of   a   registered   society
which is in enjoyment of affiliated status, was entitled to sue. Such an
illegality   committed   by  the  Tribunal   was  liable  to   be  corrected  by   the
High Court under its revisional jurisdiction and hence the fulcrum  of
the argument of the learned senior  counsel for  the appellants, has to
fall to the ground.
17. As a matter of fact, the Mahal Committee did not file any revision
against   the   rejection   by   the   Waqf   Tribunal   of   the   relief   of   declaration
regarding   the   certificate   dated   24.03.2004   issued   by   the   Chief
11

Executive Officer of the Kerala State Waqf Board. In the plaint filed by
the Mahal Committee in OS No.9 of 2004, they assailed the certificate,
on   the   ground   that   the   said   certificate   completely   repudiated   the
findings   of   the   Enquiry   Officer   that   the   Mahal   Committee   was   in
management   and   administration   of   the   Masjid.   In   other   words   the
appellants herein understood, and rightly so, that the certificate dated
24.03.2004   sought   to   dislodge   their   claim   to   be   in   management   and
administration   of   the   mosque.   Therefore,   the   rejection   by   the   Waqf
Tribunal, of the prayer for declaring the said certificate to be null and
void was fatal to their claim. Yet the appellants did not choose to file a
revision.  Today   they   cannot   take  umbrage  under   the   fact  that   in  any
case,   the   Tribunal   found   them   to   be   in   management   and
administration of the waqf.
18. Though the High Court did not put against the appellants, their
failure to file a revision, we think it is a  crucial fact which cannot  be
overlooked. This is for the reason that the document dated 24.03.2004
is a certificate of registration issued under Section 36 of the Waqf Act,
1995. Once it is admitted that it was the first respondent namely the
Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a waqf under Section 36
12

of the Act and once it is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 2 of
their plaint in OS No.9 of 2004 that the mosque was constructed in a
vacant   plot   demised   by   Salafi   Trust,   it   was   not   open   to   them   to   go
against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli.
19. Though Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants
also   invited   our   attention   to   certain   other   aspects   in   the   impugned
judgment, we do not think that we need to go into each of these issues
when   we   are   convinced   that   the   High   Court   exercised   its   revisional
jurisdiction correctly and justly.  
20. Therefore the appeals are dismissed.    There shall be no order to
costs.
 
…………………………….J.
(Hemant Gupta)
…………………………….J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
March  30, 2022.
13