This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/78 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The said suit was instituted praying for the relief of eviction after demolishing the construction made on a portion of the plaint schedule property and also for the relief of injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 or any of them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs relating to the area marked in red in the sketch and for mesne profits and also for the other appropriate reliefs.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and D.Ws.1 to 7, marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.24, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 and Ex.X.1 and on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the suit was instituted as against the then Members of the Committee and subsequent thereto, the present Members of the Committee had been substituted.

3. Contentions of Sri Suresh:- Sri Suresh representing Sri Mahipathy Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would maintain that the findings recorded in relation to the genuineness of the gift deed - Ex.B.10 are not sustainable findings. The Counsel also would maintain that there is no evidence to establish the actual delivery of possession by late Bugga Reddy and hence it may have to be taken that the gift deed - Ex.B.10 was not acted upon. The Counsel also further pointed out that here is a case where it is stated that the joint family property had been gifted away by the father. The Counsel also would maintain that it cannot be said that a Hindu has an authority under the Personal Law to make such an alienation in favour of Muslim Community. Even otherwise, the Counsel would maintain that it cannot be said that such gift had been made for "pious purpose". Hence, viewed from any angle, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the appeal to be allowed. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. Contentions of Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig:-Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that in the eye of law, there is no prohibition or bar imposed on a Hindu in making a gift of a reasonable portion of the joint family property for "pious purposes" in favour of muslim community. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and would further maintain that though the very execution of Ex.B.10 and whether it was acted upon or not, these questions were put into controversy, in the light of the clear evidence available on record there cannot be any doubt or controversy relating to the genuineness of Ex.B.10. The Counsel also would maintain that at the best the question to be decided is whether there is any legal bar imposed by Law on a Hindu in executing such a document for "pious purpose" in favour of the Muslim community. The Counsel also would maintain that in a way the provisions of the Wakf Act also would support the stand taken by the respondents. The Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the decisions and ultimately would conclude that in the light of the findings which had been recorded in elaboration by the trial Court, the said findings need not be disturbed in the appeal and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the Counsel on record. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Cou