Kerala High Court Upholds Civil Court’s Authority Over Waqf Tribunal in Executing Pre-Tribunal Decrees: “Decree Cannot Lose Enforceability Due to Subsequent Jurisdictional Changes” and Orders Expedited Execution

Court’s Decision

The Kerala High Court set aside the Executing Court’s orders that rejected jurisdiction to execute a decree concerning the administration and possession of a mosque, which is Waqf property. The High Court held that the Civil Court maintains jurisdiction to execute decrees passed before the Waqf Tribunal’s establishment, emphasizing that the lack of a transfer provision in the Waqf Act points to the legislative intent for Civil Courts to retain jurisdiction over such cases. The High Court directed the Executing Court to proceed with execution promptly, aiming for completion within three months.

Facts

The petitioners, members of a family with longstanding administrative control over a mosque, filed a suit in 1996 seeking a declaration, injunction, and recovery of possession, asserting their right to manage the mosque, a registered Waqf property. The defendants, members of a newly formed local committee, contested this, arguing that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Waqf Act. The trial court, however, ruled in favor of the petitioners in 2000, a decision upheld on appeal in 2016.

In 2019, the petitioners filed an execution petition, which was transferred to the Kothamangalam Munsiff Court. Meanwhile, the Waqf Board appointed an interim Mutawalli to manage the mosque, further complicating the execution process.

Issues

1. Whether the Civil Court had inherent jurisdiction to pass the decree in the suit regarding Waqf property, given the absence of the Waqf Tribunal at the time.
2. Whether the Executing Court could deny jurisdiction to execute a decree based on the Waqf Tribunal’s later constitution.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners argued that the Civil Court had inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate and enforce the decree, as the Waqf Tribunal was not constituted at the time of the suit’s filing. They further contended that the absence of a statutory provision in the Waqf Act for transferring pending cases to the Tribunal indicates the Civil Court’s continuous jurisdiction.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents claimed that the decree was a nullity, arguing that the Civil Court lost jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Waqf Act when the Waqf Tribunal was constituted. They maintained that only the Tribunal held authority to execute decrees concerning Waqf matters.

Analysis of the Law

The Court examined Sections 83 and 85 of the Waqf Act, which outline the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the Civil Courts’ exclusion in Waqf-related disputes. It observed that while the Act provides for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it lacks provisions for transferring pre-existing cases to the Tribunal. The Court also referred to Section 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, which supports the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to execute its own decrees unless expressly barred.

Precedent Analysis

The Court cited Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, emphasizing that unless there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction, a decree’s validity cannot be questioned in execution proceedings. Additionally, Ali Haji v. Alima and P. Rama Rao v. High Court of A.P. highlighted similar principles in maintaining Civil Court jurisdiction where no specific transfer provisions exist in the statutes.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court underscored that the Waqf Act does not provide for automatic transfer of cases filed before the Tribunal’s establishment. It reasoned that the decree, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, cannot lose its enforceability due to subsequent jurisdictional changes. The Court interpreted Section 7(5) of the Waqf Act as supporting the validity of the suit, which was filed when no Tribunal existed, thus exempting it from the Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the original petition, directing the Executing Court to continue and complete the decree’s execution within three months. The Court’s decision reinforces the Civil Court’s authority to adjudicate cases initiated before the Waqf Tribunal’s constitution and clarifies the legislative intent in the absence of explicit transfer provisions.

Implications

This ruling has significant implications for the jurisdictional boundaries of Civil Courts and specialized Tribunals, emphasizing the need for explicit legislative provisions regarding jurisdiction transfer. It also strengthens the enforcement rights of decree-holders, even in specialized property disputes like Waqf matters, by affirming that jurisdictional changes post-decree do not nullify Civil Court authority in execution.

Also Read – Calcutta High Court Upholds Assistant Headmaster Appointment, Dismisses Challenge to Selection Process: “No Evidence of Bias, Illegality, or Patent Irregularity Found”