Authority: Madras High Court, Chennai

Order Date: 31-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Civil Revision Petition (CRP No.1884 of 2022) filed by M.S. Mohamed Nymudeen under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, seeking to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 29‑Apr‑2022 passed in IA No.260/21 in OA No.36/21 by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai.
  • Respondents:

1. SEBCO Property Pvt Ltd (Managing Director J.S. Leyronne Morais)

2. SEBCO Property Pvt Ltd (Director Jebamal Morais)

3. M. Anand

4. Farook Ali

5. M. Vijaya Parthiban

6. Newo Max Properties Pvt Ltd (Director)

7. V. Kanniayan

8. Pelican Reality Ventures Pvt Ltd (S. Nageswaran)

9. V. Shanmuam

10. Raja S/o Sankaranthi

11. Gayathri

12. Thilagavathi

13. Geetha

14. Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

15. N.M. Khajamian Waqf (Sunni)

  • Core dispute: Whether the properties in question ceased to be Wakf properties following the Wakf Board order dated 21‑Jun‑1986, and whether the Tribunal correctly rejected the Original Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
  • Petitioner’s contentions:
  • The 21‑Jun‑1986 Board order releasing fifty‑four properties and retaining three for charitable purposes was beyond jurisdiction and void because Sections 15(j) and 36A of the Wakf Act, 1954 do not empower the Board to divest Wakf status.
  • The Board had no inherent power of review; the 1986 order is therefore non‑est and cannot affect the petitioner’s rights.
  • Once a Wakf is dedicated, it cannot be revoked; the properties remained Wakf, making all subsequent alienations void.
  • The petitioner, a beneficiary of N.M. Khajamian Waqf, sought injunction against alienation and claimed a valid cause of action that the Tribunal ignored.
  • Respondents’ contentions:
  • The Board acted under Sections 15(j) and 36A, retaining three properties for charitable purposes and releasing the remaining fifty‑four; a Deed of Declaration dated 25‑Jul‑1986 further effected the release.
  • The petitioner, having benefited from the 1986 order, is estopped from challenging it now.
  • The Original Application disclosed that the properties had already been released, rendering the suit outside the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal.
  • The matter is barred by limitation, laches, acquiescence, and estoppel; the Tribunal was correct to reject the application as an abuse of process.
  • Procedural history:
  • Petitioner earlier filed OS No.905 of 2017 and OS No.85 of 2019 in civil courts seeking injunction against alienation; the courts directed the dispute to the Wakf Tribunal.
  • The Tribunal, applying Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejected the Original Application on the ground that the properties were no longer Wakf.
  • The petitioner filed the present revision petition challenging that rejection.
  • Legal references cited:
  • Supreme Court decisions in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022 2 SCC 25).
  • Section 6 of the Wakf Act, which provides a one‑year limitation to challenge a Wakf notification.
  • The Wakf Amendment Act, 1984 and Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995, which exclude limitation in recovery of Wakf property.

Final Outcome

  • The Madras High Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the petitioner’s arguments, confirming that the properties had been lawfully released by the Board, that the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to reject the Original Application, and that the petition was barred by limitation, estoppel and laches. No costs were awarded.

Topics: Wakf Property Dispute, Civil Revision Petition