( 1 ) WAKF Board filed a suit being O. S. No. 61 of 1980 for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. It sought eviction of defendants 1 to 17 and also claimed mesne profits, it also sought a decree for permanent injunction. It also sought injunction against municipality-defendant No. 5 not to pay compensation for lands acquired during the road widening. Defendants 1 to 4 in O. S. No. 61 of 1980 filed another suit being o. S. No. 156 of 1975 which was later numbered as O. S. No. 137 of 1978 seeking injunction against the Wakf Board. Both the suits were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment. O. S. No. 61 of 1980 filed by Wakf Board was dismissed, whereas o. S. No. 137 of 1978 filed by the defendants was decreed in part. The Wakf Board filed two appeals being AS No. 2348 of 1987 and tr. AS No. 1171 of 1990. Tr. AS No. 1026 of 1991 has been filed by the plaintiffs in o. S. No 137 of 1978. Since all these three appeals arise out of the same judgment of the trial Court, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they appeared in O. S. No. 61 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE facts on the basis of which the suits were filed may be summarised thus.

( 3 ) O. S. NO. 61 of 1980 was filed by A. P. Wakf Board. They averred in their plaint that there was an ancient Muslim Wakf in rajahmundry city which was known as moula Ali Golusula Panja (Ashurkhana ). The panja building has a vast burial ground all around it. The property is situated near rajahmundry, Forte gate and adjacent to the main street. Till 1975 there was a row of 11 non-residential shops along side main road as part of the said wakf. Between the 4th and 5th shops there was a roofed passage which served as the only access from the public road to the burial ground which lay behind the said row of shops. There are compound walls on the other three sides of this wakf property. Pursuant to the master plan scheme settled by the 5th defendant- municipality, the main road was widened. 5th defendant demanded house owners to either voluntarily demolish portions of their building, required for widening the main road or to face the consequences of demolition work being done by it. Defendants 1 to 4 are ex-Muthawallis of this wakf and were continuing in illegal occupation of the wakf properties which included the plaint A schedule burial ground and Panja building and also the lands described in the plaint B schedule property. The defendants 1 to 4 failed to inform the plaintiff about the proposed demolition and without the plaintiff s knowledge and consent, they demolished the shops and constructed hastily new shops in the left over Panja site and part of the burial ground as depicted in the plaint C schedule property after acquisition. Defendants 6 to 17 were the tenants of the shops. The plaintiff contended that it was a statutory body constituted under the Wakf Act No. 29 of 1965, as such it has a statutory right and duty to administer all wakfs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This property was notified to be wakf property by a Gazette notification dt. 19-4-1962 after due survey. Then the 1st defendant amongst defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit being O. S. No. 303 of 1963 on the file of District Munsif, rajahmundry for a declaration that the burial ground- cum- Panja building (which is shown as plaint A schedule property in the present suit) was his personal property and not wakf property. After contest by the plaintiff herein the suit was dismissed with costs and the decision has become final. 2nd defendant is the younger brother of 1st defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 and their sister shamsunnisa were the Mutawallies of this wakf. In the later times the defendants 3 and 4 who are the sons of the said Shamsunnisa also acted as Mutawallis along with defendants 1 and 2. It was contended that although the 1 st defendant challenged the notification under Wakf Act and failed, and the defendants 2 to 4 who were Mutawall