Kiran Raj

The High Court has upheld the execution of a decree in a longstanding property dispute concerning waqf property, dismissing objections raised by the judgment debtors regarding jurisdiction and procedural fairness. The court stated that the decree had been previously upheld in prior judicial proceedings, upholding that the execution process must proceed without further delay.

The dispute originated from a suit filed in 1996 (OS No. 403/1996) before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. The plaintiffs, a group of individuals with an interest in the waqf property, filed a suit for recovery and possession of the decree schedule property, alleging unlawful occupation and encroachment by the defendants. After a lengthy trial, the court granted a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to vacate the property and hand over possession.

Following the decree, the defendants (now judgment debtors) challenged the decision, filing appeals before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, in AS No. 87 of 2000. The appellate court upheld the Munsiff Court’s decree in its judgment dated 16.11.2016, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the property.

Also Read: Supreme Court Questions Odisha’s Handling of Land Dispute Cases, Cites “Inordinate Delay” and “Lack of Diligence”

Despite the appellate court’s confirmation, the judgment debtors did not comply with the decree, prompting the decree holders to file an execution petition (EP No. 23/2019) before the Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam. The judgment debtors objected to the execution, contending that the decree was inexecutable due to the civil court's lack of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995. They asserted that the execution should have been initiated before the Waqf Tribunal rather than a civil court.

The Executing Court, in its initial judgement on 08.11.2022, found merit in the judgment debtors' contention and returned the execution petition, directing the decree holders to approach the Waqf Tribunal. The decree holders challenged this decision before the High Court in OP(C) No. 177/2023. The High Court reviewed the jurisdictional concerns and stated that the decree was executable by the civil court. It found that the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, which passed the original decree, had jurisdiction and directed the Executing Court to proceed with execution. Following this directive, the Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam, resumed execution proceedings and ordered the delivery of the decree schedule property.

The petitioners, judgment debtors 3, 6, and 8, filed the present original petition (OP(C) No. 141/2025) challenging the Executing Court’s order on two primary grounds:

1. Jurisdictional Challenge: The judgment debtors contended that the decree was a nullity as the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass a decree concerning waqf property in light of Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995. They argued that the exclusive jurisdiction over waqf matters rested with the Waqf Tribunal.

2. Denial of Opportunity to be Heard: The petitioners claimed that the execution order was issued without granting them a fair opportunity to be heard.

The High Court, in its judgment, upheld its previous findings in OP(C) No. 177/2023, stating that “the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, which passed the decree, had jurisdiction to pass the decree despite the bar under Section 85.” The court stated that Section 85 did not preclude civil courts from adjudicating on matters concerning waqf property when the issue did not involve disputes of waqf nature requiring exclusive adjudication by the Tribunal.

The court further observed that the decree had attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal by the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, and the execution proceedings had been pending since 2019. It noted that the judgment debtors had actively participated in the proceedings and had filed a counter-statement in 2019, wherein they raised the same objections that had already been adjudicated.

Also Read: 'Mere Procedural Lapse Cannot Defeat Democratic Mandate': Bombay High Court on No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch

Regarding the petitioners’ second contention, the court reviewed the records, including the B-diary proceedings, and found that the judgment debtors had been afforded ample opportunities to contest the execution. The court stated, “Ext. P6 copy of the B diary proceedings would show that the petitioners entered appearance on 18/11/2024, and the delivery was ordered only on 09/12/2024 after complying with all the statutory formalities.” The judgment further noted that the petitioners had been served with notices under Rule 35 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and had full knowledge of the execution proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the original petition, upholding the Executing Court’s order for delivery of the decree schedule property. It stated that there was no illegality or impropriety in the execution proceedings. The judgment concluded, “There is no scope for extending any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.” The court directed the Executing Court to ensure the execution was completed without further hindrance, bringing an end to the prolonged litigation.

Case Title: Meeravu Haji & Ors. v. Ebrahim @ Kochoran (Died) & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:17812

Case Number: OP(C) No. 141/2025

Bench: Justice Kauser Edappagath

[Read/Download order]