Supreme Court overturns decision, restores wakf tribunal jurisdiction after parties initially accepted tribunal authority in property dispute

SC allowed appeal challenging HC order in wakf property dispute. HC erroneously held wakf tribunal lacked jurisdiction despite appellant initially requesting suit transfer from civil court to tribunal. Court applied estoppel principle - parties cannot dispute jurisdiction after accepting it. HC wrongly presumed joint Hindu family business existence based solely on ration card without evidence of family funds investment. Court clarified HC jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate, when reviewing wakf tribunal orders. Surrender letter was validly proved despite translation discrepancies. SC restored wakf tribunal's original decision favoring plaintiff's possession rights.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226.
3. Reappreciation of facts by the High Court under Article 227.
4. Surrender of tenancy by the Karta of the joint Hindu family.
5. Authority of the Karta to surrender tenancy without consent of other coparceners.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal:

The appellant contended that the Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Gobindram (2010) and the amendment by Central Act No. 27 of 2013. The Court held that the objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction was not permissible as the order to transfer the suit to the Wakf Tribunal was passed at the instance of the appellant and the Wakf Board and had attained finality. The parties cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath.

Maintainability of the Writ Petition:

The appellant argued that the order of the Wakf Tribunal could not be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing Sadhana Lodh (2003) and Md. Wasiur Rahman (2018). The Court found that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226/227 cannot be wholly excluded and that the High Court, in examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the Tribunal's determination, was exercising jurisdiction under the Act. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable.

Reappreciation of Facts by the High Court:

The appellant argued that the High Court could not reappreciate facts in a petition under Article 227. The Court held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226 and that the High Court could examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of the findings recorded by the Wakf Tribunal without acting as an appellate court.

Surrender of Tenancy by the Karta:

The appellant contended that the surrender of tenancy by defendant No. 1 was not of a joint Hindu family business but of the tenancy which had not been carried out for years. The Court found that the High Court erred in presuming that the tenancy was a joint family asset based on payment of rent and the existence of a ration card. The Court held that no presumption of joint Hindu family business arises from payment of rent or the existence of a ration card unless there is evidence that the business was carried out with joint family funds.

Authority of the Karta to Surrender Tenancy:

The Court held that even if Devendra Prasad Sinha was considered to be representing the joint Hindu family, the act of surrendering the tenancy was for the benefit of the joint family due to the cessation of hotel business activities. The surrender letter was held to be validly proved and accepted by the Wakf Board. Therefore, the act of surrender of tenancy was for the benefit of the joint family.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the order of the Wakf Tribunal, concluding that the High Court had committed a basic error in law and fact.

---