LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate eviction matters related to Wakf properties.
CASE TYPE: Wakf Law, Property Law
Case Name: Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Judgment Date: 20 October 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 949
Judges: M. M. Sundresh, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can a party raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction at the execution stage of a decree, after having failed to raise it during the trial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a Wakf property, clarifying the powers of the Wakf Tribunal and the importance of raising jurisdictional issues promptly. This judgment underscores the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate, and it reinforces the Wakf Tribunal’s authority in eviction matters. The judgment was authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh, with Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra concurring.
Case Background
The appellant, Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, owned a property that was leased to respondent no. 2 for 33 years. Respondent no. 1 is represented by the son of the deceased individual who represented respondent no. 2. The respondents sublet the premises without permission. Upon the lease expiry, the appellant issued a legal notice to respondent no. 2 to vacate the property. Respondent no. 2 replied that the lease was valid until 24.11.1999, as the possession was handed over on 25.11.1966. In another reply, respondent no. 2 claimed the lease was extended orally for another 33 years and invoked the arbitration clause in the original lease deed.
The appellant then filed a suit in O.S. No. 132 of 1999 before the Wakf Tribunal, seeking eviction and recovery of possession, along with arrears of rent and damages. After prolonged litigation, a decree was passed on 13.11.2002 in favor of the appellant. The suit was dismissed against defendants 3, 4, 5, and 7, while defendant 6 was set ex-parte. The respondents did not raise any objection to the Wakf Tribunal’s jurisdiction at this stage, and their defense of an oral lease was rejected.
The respondents then filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The appellant filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 29 of 2014 on 18.10.2014. Even during the execution proceedings, the respondents did not raise the plea of maintainability of the suit. However, after four years, they raised an additional counter, claiming that the suit should not have been entertained by the Wakf Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 38 and Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726. The Executing Court dismissed this application, but the High Court of Telangana reversed this decision, relying on Ramesh Gobindram (Supra). This order of the High Court was challenged in the present appeal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Date not specified] | Lease deed executed between the appellant and respondent no. 2. |
| 25.11.1966 | Respondent no. 2 claimed possession was handed over on this date. |
| 1999 | Lease period of 33 years expired. |
| 05.06.1999 | Appellant issued a legal notice for vacant possession. |
| [Date not specified] | Respondent no. 2 claimed oral extension of lease for another 33 years. |
| 1999 | Appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 132 of 1999 before the Wakf Tribunal. |
| 13.11.2002 | Decree passed in favor of the appellant by the Wakf Tribunal. |
| [Date not specified] | Respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed. |
| 18.10.2014 | Appellant filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 29 of 2014. |
| [Date not specified] | Respondents raised a plea of maintainability of the suit after 4 years of the execution petition. |
| 10.08.2021 | Executing Court dismissed the application filed by the respondents. |
| 23.11.2021 | High Court of Telangana reversed the decision of the Executing Court. |
| 20.10.2023 | Supreme Court delivered the final judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Wakf Tribunal initially decreed the suit in favor of the appellant on 13.11.2002, rejecting the respondent’s claim of an oral lease. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents, affirming that there was no legal basis for the respondents to continue in occupation after the lease expired. However, the High Court of Telangana reversed the decision of the Executing Court in the execution proceedings, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra). This reversal led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Wakf Act, 1995, particularly Section 83 and Section 85, which deal with the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. The Court also considered Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which relates to the powers of an executing court.
Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, as amended, states that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine any dispute, question, or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, including the eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and lessee of such property.
Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, states that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question, or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal.
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with questions to be determined by the court executing the decree.
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The appellant argued that the respondents had not raised any objection to the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal until the execution stage.
- ✓ The appellant contended that the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra) has been considered and explained by the Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 414.
- ✓ The appellant submitted that the amendment brought in under Act 27 of 2013 removed the basis of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra).
- ✓ The appellant further argued that even if the impugned order is correct, the appellant would have to file a suit before the Wakf Tribunal again.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- ✓ The respondents argued that a plea of nullity can be taken at any stage.
- ✓ The respondents contended that as held in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra), Sections 6 and 7 of the Act 43 of 1995 do not confer the requisite jurisdiction on the Wakf Tribunal to decide an issue regarding the eviction of an individual from a Wakf property.
- ✓ The respondents argued that the impugned order was passed noting the dictum laid by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra), and therefore, there is no need for interference.
Wakf Board’s Arguments:
- ✓ The Wakf Board argued that even before the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra), there was ample jurisdiction to try all suits pertaining to a Wakf and Wakf property, a fact correctly noted in Rashid Wali Beg (Supra).
- ✓ The Wakf Board submitted that Section 83 read with Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, are distinct and independent provisions that clothed the Wakf Tribunal with adequate jurisdiction.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | Objection to jurisdiction not raised until execution stage. | Appellant |
| Amendment Act 27 of 2013 removed the basis of Ramesh Gobindram (Supra). | Appellant | |
| Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction over all matters relating to Wakf and Wakf property. | Wakf Board | |
| Plea of Nullity | Plea of nullity can be taken at any stage. | Respondents |
| Sections 6 and 7 of Act 43 of 1995 do not confer jurisdiction on Wakf Tribunal for eviction. | Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction, particularly in light of the subsequent amendments to the Wakf Act and the principle of approbate and reprobate.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect. The Court noted that the respondents had not raised objections to jurisdiction until the execution stage, and the amendment to the Wakf Act by Act 27 of 2013 had removed the basis of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra). The Court also noted that the Wakf Tribunal has sufficient jurisdiction to try every suit pertaining to either a Wakf or a Wakf property. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How the authority was used |
|---|---|---|
| General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16 | Privy Council | Cited to highlight the difficulties faced by litigants in India after obtaining a decree. |
| Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed and distinguished, noting that its basis was removed by subsequent amendments. |
| Punjab Wakf Board v. Pritpal Singh & Anr., (2013) SCC Online SC 1345 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in the context of the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| Faseela M. v. Muneerul Islam Madrasa Committee and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 38 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondents to argue lack of jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike & and Another, (2019) 4 SCC 698 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in the context of the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| Telangana State Wakf Board & Anr. V. Mohamed Muzafar, (2021) 9 SCC 179 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in the context of the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 15 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in the context of the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 414 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to explain the effect of amendments on the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| Kiran Singh and Others. v. Chaman Paswan and Others, 1955 (1) SCR 117 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree. |
| Chandrika Misir and Another v. Bhaiya Lal, (1973) 2 SCC 474 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree. |
| Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) through His LRs, (1990) 1 SCC 193 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree. |
| Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs. v. Jasjit Singh and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 507 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree. |
| Sarwan Kumar and Another v. Madan Lal Aggarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 147 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree. |
| Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree. |
| Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL) v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 82 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the principle that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree. |
| P.V Nidhish & Ors. v. Kerala State Wakf Board & Anr., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 519 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in the context of the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| Union of India and Others v. N. Murugesan and Others, (2022) 2 SCC 25 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle of approbate and reprobate. |
| Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao, 1956 SCR 451 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle of approbate and reprobate. |
| State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu, (2014) 15 SCC 144 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle of approbate and reprobate. |
| Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle of approbate and reprobate. |
| New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult, (1975) 2 SCC 840 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle of retrospective application of procedural law. |
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (1994) 4 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle of retrospective application of procedural law. |
| Neena Aneja and Another v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 161 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle of retrospective application of procedural law. |
| Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Rao v. Chatlapalli Seetharamaratna Ranganayakamma, (1997) 5 SCC 460 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the mandatory duty of the court to satisfy itself as to the existence of jurisdiction. |
| Ashok Kapil v. Sana Ullah, (1996) 6 SCC 342 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. |
| Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, (2010) 6 SCC 193 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. |
| Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd., (1911) 12 CLR 398 | High Court of Australia | Cited to emphasize the mandatory duty of the court to confirm its own jurisdiction. |
| Zhang v. Zemin (2010) 79 NSWLR 513 | New South Wales Court of Appeal (Australia) | Cited to emphasize the mandatory duty of the court to confirm its own jurisdiction. |
| Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principle that no one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court. |
| Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (1968) 3 SCR 662 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principles governing exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts. |
| M. Hariharasudhan v. R. Karmegam, (2019) 10 SCC 94 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principles governing exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts. |
| Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another, (2022) 12 SCC 455 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the effect of removing the basis of a judgment. |
| Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford [1859] 6 C.B. (NS) 336 | English Court | Cited to explain the principle that where a statute gives a special remedy, that remedy must be followed. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Respondents did not raise objections to jurisdiction until the execution stage. | The Court noted that the respondents’ conduct of not raising the issue of jurisdiction until the execution stage was not acceptable and the principle of approbate and reprobate was applicable. |
| The decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra) has been considered and explained by the Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 414. | The Court agreed with the appellant’s submission and held that the decision in Rashid Wali Beg (Supra) correctly explained the effect of the amendments on the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. |
| The amendment brought in under Act 27 of 2013 removed the basis of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra). | The Court agreed that the amendment had removed the basis of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra) and that the Wakf Tribunal now had the jurisdiction to deal with eviction matters. |
| A plea of nullity can be taken at any stage. | The Court held that while a plea of nullity can be taken at any stage, it cannot be allowed to be used as a dilatory tactic, especially when the party had ample opportunity to raise it earlier. |
| Sections 6 and 7 of the Act 43 of 1995 do not confer the requisite jurisdiction on the Wakf Tribunal. | The Court did not agree with the interpretation of the respondents and held that the Wakf Tribunal has sufficient jurisdiction to try every suit pertaining to either a Wakf or a Wakf property. |
| Even prior to the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra), there was ample jurisdiction to try all suits pertaining to a Wakf and Wakf property. | The Court agreed with the Wakf Board’s submission and held that the Wakf Tribunal had adequate jurisdiction even before the amendment. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726* The Court held that the basis of this decision was removed by the amendment made by Act 27 of 2013.
- Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 414* The Court approved this decision which had already explained the effect of the amendments and the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal.
- Union of India and Others v. N. Murugesan and Others, (2022) 2 SCC 25* The Court relied on this decision to explain the principle of approbate and reprobate, stating that a party cannot accept and reject the same thing.
- New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult, (1975) 2 SCC 840* The Court relied on this decision to explain that a change of forum is a procedural matter and operates retrospectively.
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129* The Court relied on this decision to explain the principle that no one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- ✓ The respondents’ delay in raising the jurisdictional issue until the execution stage, which was seen as a tactic to prolong the litigation.
- ✓ The amendment made by Act 27 of 2013, which removed the basis of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra), thereby clarifying the Wakf Tribunal’s jurisdiction in eviction matters.
- ✓ The principle of approbate and reprobate, which prevents a party from taking advantage of its own wrong.
- ✓ The need to ensure that procedural laws serve the cause of justice and not obstruct it.
- ✓ The mandatory duty of the court to satisfy itself as to the existence of jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that the Wakf Tribunal has sufficient jurisdiction to try every suit pertaining to either a Wakf or a Wakf property, notwithstanding the nature of relief concerned, except as mandated under the statute.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Procedural Fairness and Timely Objections | 40% |
| Importance of Legislative Amendments | 30% |
| Application of the Principle of Approbate and Reprobate | 20% |
| Upholding the Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction based on the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (Supra). However, it rejected this view, noting that the subsequent amendment to the Wakf Act had removed the basis of that decision. The Court also considered the principle that no one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court and that procedural laws are meant to serve the cause of justice.
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and restored the order passed by the Executing Court. The Court held that the High Court was incorrect in holding that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction. The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal in eviction cases related to Wakf properties.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of this case is that:
- A party cannot raise the plea of lack of jurisdiction at the execution stage of a decree after having failed to raise it during the trial.
- The Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate eviction matters related to Wakf properties, especially after the amendment to the Wakf Act by Act 27 of 2013.
- The principle of approbate and reprobate prevents a party from taking advantage of its own wrong.
Obiter Dicta
The Court made the following additional observations:
- ✓ The Court emphasized that procedural laws are meant to serve the cause of justice and not to obstruct it.
- ✓ The Court reiterated the mandatory duty of the court to satisfy itself as to the existence of jurisdiction.
- ✓ The Court noted that a change of forum is a procedural matter and operates retrospectively.
- ✓ The Court observed that no one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. has clarified the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal in eviction cases. The Court has affirmed that the Wakf Tribunal has the power to adjudicate eviction matters related to Wakf properties, especially after the amendment to the Wakf Act by Act 27 of 2013. This judgment reinforces the principle that parties must raise jurisdictional objections promptly and cannot use such objections as a dilatory tactic at the execution stage. The Court also underscored the importance of procedural laws in ensuring justice and the principle of approbate and reprobate. This decision provides much-needed clarity on the powers of Wakf Tribunals and will be a guiding precedent in future cases.