Holding

A society can sue or be sued only as authorized by its bye‑laws; a local unit that is not a registered entity lacks such capacity, and the High Court’s dismissal of the suit was correct.

Summary

The dispute concerned the management of Salafi Juma Masjid, a waqf registered under the Waqf Act, 1995. The Mahal Committee, claiming to be a local (Sakha) unit of the registered society Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen, sued the Salafi Trust seeking a declaration that a certificate of registration issued under s.36 of the Waqf Act was void and an injunction restraining the Trust from interfering with mosque management. The Waqf Tribunal granted an injunction but refused the declaration; the High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to s.83(9) of the Waqf Act, held that the Mahal Committee was not a legal entity capable of suing because it was not a registered society and its bye‑laws did not authorise litigation. The High Court dismissed the Committee’s suit and decreed the Trust’s suit. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that a society may sue only in accordance with its bye‑laws, a local unit without such authority cannot sue, and the High Court correctly exercised its limited revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The legal capacity of a local (Sakha) unit of a registered society to sue and be sued under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to s.83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995.
Whether the certificate of registration issued under s.36 of the Waqf Act can be declared null and void by a party lacking statutory authority.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. Order 1 Rule 8
Societies Registration Act, 1860s. 6
Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955s. 9
Waqf Act, 1995s. 36, s. 83(9)

Subjects

WaqfSocietyLegal entitySue and be suedBye‑lawsRevisional jurisdictionCertificate of registrationMutawalliInjunctionDeclaration of nullity

Judgment

1070 [2022] REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 14 S.C.R. 1070 [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A P. NAZEER ETC.
v.
SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3132-3133 of 2016)
B MARCH 30, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Societies Registration Act, 1860: s. 6 - Suits by and against
societies – Entitlement of a Society to sue and be sued – Held: Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and
C
be sued, only in terms of its bye-laws – The bye-laws may authorise
the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or
defend a suit for and on behalf of the society terms of its bye-laws
– Under s. 6, every society registered under the Act may sue or be
sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or
D trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the
society and, in default of such determination, in the name of such
person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion
– Thus, unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society,
demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who
signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye-laws
E
to do so, the suit cannot be entertained – Fact that the plaintiff in a
suit happens to be a local unit or Sakha unit of a registered society
is of no consequence, unless the bye-laws support the institution of
such a suit – On facts, the finding that the tribunal held that plaintiff
No.1 is a legal entity, entitled to sue and be sued was solely on the
F ground that plaintiff No.1 was one of the Sakha units affiliated to a
registered society, is contrary to law – Waqf tribunal committed
illegality, first in not framing an issue about the status of the Mahal
Committee-appellant no.1 and then in recording a finding as though
the local unit of a registered society which is in enjoyment of affiliated
status, was entitled to sue – Such an illegality committed by the
G
tribunal was liable to be corrected by the High Court under its
revisional jurisdiction – Moreover, the document is a certificate of
registration issued u/s. 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995 – Once it is admitted
that it was the first respondent namely the Salafi Trust who got the
mosque registered as a waqf u/s. 36 of the Act and once it is admitted
H by the appellants in their plaint that the mosque was constructed in
1070
P. NAZEER ETC. v. SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC. 1071

a vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go A
against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli –
Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies
Registration Act, 1955 – Waqf Act, 1995 - ss.36, 83(9) proviso.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar
Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 : [2014] 14 SCR 1379 – B
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 14 SCR 1379 referred to Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3132- C
3133 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2013 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. Nos. 338 and 339 of 2006.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., E. M. S. Anam, Advs. for the Appellants.
D
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Abraham C. Mathew, Ms.
Ankita Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Aggrieved by a common Judgment delivered by the High Court E
of Kerala in two Civil Revision Petitions filed under the proviso to sub-
section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, reversing the judgment
of the Waqf Tribunal and decreeing the suit of the respondents in entirety,
but dismissing their own suit, the appellants have come up with the above
civil appeals. F
2. We have heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants and Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for
the private contesting respondents.
3. The sole appellant in one of the above appeals by name Shri
P. Nazeer was the defendant in a suit O.S No.10 of 2004 filed by the G
respondents 1 and 2 herein, on the file of Waqf Tribunal, Kollam. The
three appellants in the other civil appeal were the plaintiffs in O.S No.9
of 2004 filed on the file of very same Waqf Tribunal, Kollam. Since the
appeals on hand arose out of cross-suits between the same parties and
also since the subject matter of the dispute relates to the right to
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A management and administration of a mosque and its properties, it will be
easy to appreciate the facts, if presented in a tabular column:

B

C

D

E

F

G 4. It is necessary to bring on record, before proceeding further,
that document No.2 in respect of which the appellants herein sought a
declaration of nullity, in their own suit O.S No.9 of 2004, was a certificate
issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Kerala Waqf Board dated
24.03.2004 in favour of Salafi Trust. The said certificate reads as follows:

H
P. NAZEER ETC. v. SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC. 1073
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

“This is to certify that the Salafi Trust, Mattanchery, Cochin-2 in A
Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District, Kerala State and its properties
having 17 cents comprised in Survey No.527/4 within the limit of
Ambalappuzha Taluk Alappuzha District have been registered
before the Kerala Waqf board as required under Section 36 of
the Waqf Act, 1995 being its registration No.6406/RA. As per
B
records of this office, Shri A.K. Babu is the present secretary of
the above Trust.”
5. In other words the appellants in the second civil appeal before
us, namely, (i) Salafi Juma Masjid Mahal Committee; (ii) its President
K.M. Syed; and (iii) its Secretary P. Nazeer, sought two sets of reliefs
from the Waqf Tribunal. They were (i) to declare the certificate dated C
24.03.2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Waqf
Board in favour of Salafi Trust as null and void; and (ii) for a permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their
management and administration of the mosque and its properties. Though
the Tribunal granted the relief of injunction, the Tribunal refused the D
relief of declaration. However, these three appellants did not choose to
challenge the Judgment of the Waqf Tribunal rejecting the relief of
declaration.
6. Similarly the respondents 1 and 2 herein sought two sets of
reliefs from the Tribunal, namely, (i) for a declaration that the second E
respondent A.K. Babu is the Secretary of the first respondent-Trust
namely Salafi Trust; and (ii) for a permanent injunction restraining Shri
P.Nazeer, the Secretary of the Mahal Committee from interfering with
their right of management of the mosque. Though the Tribunal granted
the relief of declaration, it did not grant the relief of injunction.
F
7. Therefore, (i) Salafi Trust; and (ii) its Secretary A.K. Babu
filed two civil revision petitions before the High Court of Kerala under
the proviso to Sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The
High Court allowed both the civil revision petitions, dismissing O.S No.9
of 2004 in entirety and decreeing O.S No.10 of 2004, as prayed for.
Therefore, the group which we may conveniently refer to as ‘Mahal G
Committee’ has come up with the above civil appeals.
8. The case of the appellants before the Waqf Tribunal was: (i)
that Salafi Juma Masjid is a public waqf registered with the Kerala Waqf
Board; (ii) that though the mosque was constructed in a vacant plot
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A given by Salafi Trust, the management and the administration of the
waqf was with the Mahal Committee; (iii) that as per the law relating to
waqfs, the person who manages the waqf is the Mutawalli; (iv) that
upon a complaint lodged by the appellant Shri P. Nazeer on behalf of the
Mahal Committee, an enquiry was held by the Waqf Board; (v) that
though the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the management and
B
administration of Salafi Masjid was with the Mahal Committee of which
P. Nazeer was the Secretary, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf
Board wrongfully issued the certificate dated 24.03.2004; and (vi) that,
therefore, the said certificate should be declared as null and void and a
permanent injunction should be issued restraining Salafi Trust and its
C men from interfering with the management and administration of the
mosque.
9. Interestingly, the Waqf Tribunal refused to declare the Certificate
dated 24.03.2004 as void, on the ground that undisputedly, Salafi Trust
got the waqf registered under Section 36 of the Waqf Act and that
D admittedly Mr. A.K. Babu was the Secretary of the Trust. But the relief
of injunction was granted by the Waqf Tribunal on the ground that the
management and administration of the mosque and its properties was
with the Mahal Committee.
10. In the revision, the High Court found (i) that Mahal Committee
E is not a registered entity and hence not entitled to file a suit; (ii) that the
suit was not even filed in a representative capacity after following the
procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC; (iii) that though the
challenge was to the management and administration of a mosque and
its immovable properties, there was no schedule of property attached to
the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004; and (iv) that as per the evidence on
F record, it was the Salafi Trust which was in management and
administration of the mosque and its properties. On the basis of these
findings, the High Court decreed the suit filed by the respondents in
entirety and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants in full.
11. Assailing the order of the High Court, Shri R. Basant, learned
G senior counsel contended that the High Court exceeded its revisional
jurisdiction and decided the lis as though it was a regular appeal. Relying
upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh,1 the learned senior
counsel contended that wherever the statute employed the expressions
1
H (2014) 9 SCC 78
P. NAZEER ETC. v. SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC. 1075
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

“appeal” and “revision”, the expression “revision” is meant to convey A
the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction. Sub-section (9) of Section 83
of the Waqf Act declares that no appeal shall lie against any decision
given by the Waqf Tribunal. Therefore, the learned senior counsel
contended that the proviso to Sub-section (9) which confers a revisional
jurisdiction upon the High Court, is meant to confer a jurisdiction narrower
B
than the jurisdiction of an appellate Court. In the case on hand, according
to the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the High Court appreciated
the evidence independently and recorded findings on questions which
were not even framed as issues by the Tribunal and that, therefore, the
impugned order of the High Court is completely contrary to law.
12. While we agree with the learned senior counsel for the C
appellants that the revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Sub-
section (9) of Section 83 is narrower than the jurisdiction that could have
been conferred upon an appellate court, we do not think that the impugned
order of the High Court suffers from the vice sought to be attributed by
the learned senior counsel for the appellants. D
13. Admittedly, the Mahal Committee which is appellant No.1 in
one of the two appeals on hand, was plaintiff No.1 in O.S No.9 of 2004.
In the plaint in O.S No.9 of 2004, there was not even a whisper about
the corporate status of the Mahal Committee. In the written statement
filed by Salafi Trust, they raised a specific contention that plaintiff No.1 E
was not a legal entity and that it is an illegal association of certain
individuals and that there was not even a pleading as to whether there
were any bye-laws and as to how plaintiffs No.2 and 3 became the
President and Secretary respectively.
14. Unfortunately, the Waqf Tribunal, in paragraph 17 of its F
Judgment held that plaintiff No.1 is a legal entity, entitled to sue and be
sued. This was solely on the ground that plaintiff No.1 (Mahal Committee)
was one of the Sakha units affiliated to a registered society by name
Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen (‘KNM’ for short).
15. The aforesaid finding is completely contrary to law. A society G
registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be
sued, only in terms of its bye-laws. The bye-laws may authorise the
President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a
suit for and on behalf of the society. Under section 6 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, “every society registered under the Act may
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal
Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and
regulations of the society and, in default of such determination, in
the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing
body for the occasion”. Even the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific
and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, which is applicable to
B
parts of Kerala carries a similar provision in section 9. Therefore, unless
the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is
a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the
pleadings was authorised by the bye-laws to do so, the suit cannot be
entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit
C or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the
bye-laws support the institution of such a suit.
16. The Waqf Tribunal committed a gross illegality, first in not
framing an issue about the status of the Mahal Committee and then in
recording a finding as though the local unit of a registered society which
D is in enjoyment of affiliated status, was entitled to sue. Such an illegality
committed by the Tribunal was liable to be corrected by the High Court
under its revisional jurisdiction and hence the fulcrum of the argument of
the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has to fall to the ground.
17. As a matter of fact, the Mahal Committee did not file any
E revision against the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal of the relief of
declaration regarding the certificate dated 24.03.2004 issued by the Chief
Executive Officer of the Kerala State Waqf Board. In the plaint filed by
the Mahal Committee in OS No.9 of 2004, they assailed the certificate,
on the ground that the said certificate completely repudiated the findings
of the Enquiry Officer that the Mahal Committee was in management
F and administration of the Masjid. In other words the appellants herein
understood, and rightly so, that the certificate dated 24.03.2004 sought
to dislodge their claim to be in management and administration of the
mosque. Therefore, the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal, of the prayer for
declaring the said certificate to be null and void was fatal to their claim.
G Yet the appellants did not choose to file a revision. Today they cannot
take umbrage under the fact that in any case, the Tribunal found them to
be in management and administration of the waqf.
18. Though the High Court did not put against the appellants, their
failure to file a revision, we think it is a crucial fact which cannot be
H overlooked. This is for the reason that the document dated 24.03.2004 is
P. NAZEER ETC. v. SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC. 1077
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

a certificate of registration issued under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, A
1995. Once it is admitted that it was the first respondent namely the
Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a waqf under Section 36
of the Act and once it is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 2 of
their plaint in OS No.9 of 2004 that the mosque was constructed in a
vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go against
B
the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli.
19. Though Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants
also invited our attention to certain other aspects in the impugned
judgment, we do not think that we need to go into each of these issues
when we are convinced that the High Court exercised its revisional
jurisdiction correctly and justly. C

20. Therefore the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order
to costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeals dismissed. D
(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)

E

F

G

H