The Defendant-Trust, a registered religious Waqf institution, owns several immovable properties, including land bearing Survey Nos. 58 and 60 in village Dawle, Taluka Thane. The Plaintiffs, who had purchased an adjacent property in 1988, sought a declaration of their easementary right of way over the Defendant-Trust's land for access to their agricultural land. For over three decades, the Plaintiffs had uninterruptedly used this right of way.

In 2019, the Defendant-Trust sought a survey of its property, including Survey Nos. 58 and 60, which prompted the Plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and injunction in 2020. The Plaintiffs were apprehensive that the Defendant-Trust, having requested the survey, might obstruct or encroach upon their right of way. Thus, they filed Special Civil Suit No. 188/2020, seeking a declaration that they had an easementary right over the Defendant's property and that the Defendant had no right to disturb this access.

In response, the Defendant-Trust filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC, seeking the rejection of the suit on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. The Defendant-Trust contended that the Waqf Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to handle matters relating to Waqf properties, including easementary rights.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs' suit or whether the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal, as per the Waqf Act, 1995. Section 83 of the Waqf Act, read in conjunction with Section 85, provides that the Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to Waqf properties. The Defendant-Trust argued that any claim involving Waqf property should be resolved by the Waqf Tribunal, not the Civil Court.

The Trial Court, however, dismissed the Defendant's application, concluding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the Waqf Act and that the Civil Court retained jurisdiction. The Defendant-Trust subsequently filed a Civil Revision Application challenging this decision.

Defendant-Trust's Argument:

The Defendant-Trust's primary contention was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit, as the dispute involved Waqf property, which fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. The Defendant cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Ramesh Gobindram Through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, to support its argument. These decisions established that the Waqf Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate all matters related to Waqf property, and as such, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.

The Defendant further argued that the provisions of Section 108A of the Waqf Act, which gives overriding effect to the Act in case of conflict with other laws, reinforced its position. Therefore, any dispute involving Waqf property, including those related to easementary rights, should be referred to the Waqf Tribunal.

Plaintiffs' Argument:

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs argued that their suit did not relate to a dispute over ownership of the Waqf property itself but merely sought a declaration of their established easementary right of way. They contended that the Waqf Tribunal's jurisdiction did not extend to matters concerning easementary rights, especially when such rights were unrelated to the possession or ownership of Waqf property.

The Plaintiffs pointed out that their only grievance was the potential obstruction of their right of way, not any issue directly related to the Waqf property or its management. They cited the decision in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari to argue that jurisdiction over disputes concerning easementary rights, particularly when they do not involve a Waqf property dispute, lies with the Civil Court.

Upon analyzing the pleadings and legal submissions, the High Court concluded that the Civil Court had jurisdiction over the suit. The Court observed that the Plaintiffs' suit was primarily based on the apprehension that the Defendant-Trust might obstruct their access to their property, and not on a dispute over ownership or possession of Waqf property.

The Court pointed out that while the Defendant-Trust's land was indeed Waqf property, the dispute at hand was not one that fell within the purview of the Waqf Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Waqf Tribunal deals with matters like eviction, determination of rights and obligations of lessors and lessees, and disputes concerning Waqf properties. However, the Plaintiffs' claim for a declaratory and injunctive relief concerning their easementary right of way was not one of these matters.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the Waqf Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to claims based solely on the use of easementary rights. Such claims, which involve the right of way and ingress/egress through a Waqf property, are typically within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless the dispute concerns the ownership or possession of the Waqf property itself.

The Court also noted that the Plaintiffs' case was based on an apprehension of future obstruction, not a current act of interference by the Defendant-Trust. Since no action had been taken by the Defendant-Trust to obstruct the Plaintiffs' access, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish a clear cause of action for the relief sought.

The High Court quashed the impugned order of the Trial Court, allowed the Defendant-Trust’s application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. The Court held that the suit was not maintainable as it was based on mere apprehension and lacked a clear cause of action. The Plaintiffs were advised to approach the appropriate forum if their access was actually obstructed in the future.

This case highlights the importance of establishing a valid cause of action before approaching a Court and clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the Civil Court and the Waqf Tribunal. While the Waqf Tribunal holds exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning Waqf properties, claims related to easementary rights that do not involve ownership or possession issues remain within the domain of the Civil Court.