Wakf Tribunal jurisdiction turns on whether wakf title is disputed; possession suits against lessees were outside pre-2013 scope.

Jurisdiction under the Wakf Act, 1995 depends on whether the Act requires the Tribunal to decide the dispute. Where the wakf character of the property is specifically disputed, Sections 6, 7, 83 and 85 indicate exclusive Tribunal jurisdiction and exclude the civil court. By contrast, a possession or injunction claim against a lessee or occupant, without a dispute on wakf title, was not within the Tribunal's pre-2013 jurisdiction unless the Act specifically provided for that relief. The 2013 amendment later expanded Section 83 to cover eviction and lessor-lessee rights, but that enlargement did not apply to earlier suits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dispute as to whether the suit property is wakf property falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995 and bars the civil court. (ii) Whether a suit by the Wakf Board for possession and injunction against a lessee or occupant is maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal when the relief does not fall within the matters specifically required to be determined by the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether a dispute as to whether the suit property is wakf property falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995 and bars the civil court.

Analysis: Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995 specifically provide for determination by the Tribunal of the question whether a property is wakf property. Section 83 constitutes Tribunals for disputes, questions or other matters relating to wakf or wakf property under the Act, while Section 85 bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. Where the defendant specifically disputes the wakf character of the property, the issue is one that must be decided under the statutory scheme by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The issue is in favour of the appellant and the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide whether the property is wakf property.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit by the Wakf Board for possession and injunction against a lessee or occupant is maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal when the relief does not fall within the matters specifically required to be determined by the Tribunal.

Analysis: A suit confined to eviction or possession against a tenant or lessee, without a dispute that the property is wakf property, is governed by the earlier construction of Section 83 and the bar of Section 85 does not extend beyond matters the Act requires the Tribunal to decide. The 2013 amendment later enlarged Section 83 to include eviction of a tenant and rights and obligations of lessor and lessee, but the suits in question were instituted before that amendment. On the facts, one appeal involved a direct dispute about the wakf nature of the property, while the other was a possession and injunction action falling within the ratio of earlier precedents on eviction and possession suits.

Conclusion: The issue is in favour of the appellant in the appeal concerning the wakf title dispute, but against the appellant in the appeal concerning possession and injunction.

Final Conclusion: The statutory forum under the Wakf Act, 1995 is exclusive where the wakf character of the property itself is in issue, but a possession-based claim on the facts of the other appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal and had to be pursued before the civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction under the Wakf Act, 1995 depends on whether the Act requires the Tribunal to decide the dispute; if the wakf character of the property is in issue, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction, but a suit for possession against a tenant or lessee is not within the Tribunal's pre-2013 jurisdiction unless specifically provided by the Act.

---