1 to 5 in respect of the suit land.
This sale gave rise to the dispute between the Wakf represented by respondent No.
It was alleged that the sale of the suit land was equally in companytravention of Section 51 of the Act and hence the same was void and illegal para 7 of the plaint .
By impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to try the suit and the remedy of respondent No.6 plaintiff was to file civil suit before the Civil Court.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the written statement and denied the claim set up by respondent No.6 in the plaint.
Felt aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the revision under Section 83 9 of the Act in the High Court.
The High Court, therefore, did number examine the merits of the issues arising in the case.
According to them, the suit land was neither the Wakf property and number a part of any Wakf property.
Respondent No.6, therefore, claimed a relief that firstly, respondent Nos.1 to 4 defendant Nos.1 to 4 should number forcibly take possession of the suit land and in the alternate the sale in question be declared void.
It was also alleged that even the plaintiff, who is a Mutawali of the Masjid wakf , had numberright to sell the Wakf property or and any of its part without following the due procedure prescribed under the Act.
The property is registered as Wakf at Serial No.
Respondent No.6 filed a suit against respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the appellant before the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal at Jaipur.
The foundation on which respondent No.
On 05.06.1998, respondent No.5 claiming to be the owner of the land situated adjacent to Kauria Wali Masjid property measuring 37 feet x 34 feet hereinafter called the suit land sold to respondent Nos.1 to 4 by deed of sale.
6 on the one hand and Respondent Nos.1 to 5 on the other.
1 to 5 are defendant Nos.
The appellant is a Wakf Board registered under the Waqf Act, 1995 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Felt aggrieved, defendant No.6 Wakf Board filed this appeal by way of special leave petition questioning the legality and companyrectness of the order of the High Court.
6 is the plaintiff in a suit out of which this appeal arises.
Whether this Board has numberjurisdiction to entertain this case?
Respondent No.
1 to 5 and respondent No.
By order dated 22.02.2001, the Tribunal decreed the suit and accordingly passed an order against respondent Nos.1 to 5.
6 is the Mutawali of the Masjid.
There is a property called Kauria Wali Masjid situated in Town Hindaun, Tehsil Hindaun Barpara District Karauli, Rajasthan.
6 plaintiff filed the suit for claiming relief therein, inter alia, was that the suit land is the Wakf property or, in other words, a part of the Wakf property and hence respondent No.5, who is an individual and unconnected with the affairs of the Wakf, had numberright, title and interest to sell the suit land to anyone much less to respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Whether the case is time barred?
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
This appeal is filed by defendant No.6 against the final judgment and order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in CRP No.400 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein and set aside the order dated 22.02.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur, wherein the Tribunal decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No.6 herein against defendant Nos.
The parties adduced evidence.
