Facts: The first appellant owned land developed into an apartment complex. The respondent claimed an area on the ground floor was enclosed as a Mosque with the owner's participation and used for prayers since 2008, but access was obstructed in 2021. The respondent sought a perpetual injunction. The appellants argued no Mosque existed, it wasn't in the sanctioned plan, and it wasn't a waqf under the Wakf Act, 1995.
Procedural Posture: The appellants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, which was rejected. The High Court dismissed their revision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Does the Waqf Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction regarding a property claimed as a waqf by user, when the property is not listed in the 'list of auqaf' under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995? Does Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 independently confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal?
Holding: No, the Waqf Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, rejecting the suit filed before the Tribunal.
Reasoning: The Court held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine whether a property is a waqf is limited to properties specified in the ‘list of auqaf'. Section 83 merely enables the constitution of the Tribunal and does not independently confer jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the principle in Ramesh Gobindram that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted only to the extent of the specific power conferred on the Tribunal by the Wakf Act. The amendment of 2013, which expanded the definition of 'list of auqaf', was clarificatory and procedural in nature. The injunction sought did not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the property was not listed as a waqf property.