(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

1. Heard the counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. This matter came up for reference before this Full Bench, as one of us (PSN, J) entertained a doubt in view of the two decisions of co-ordinate Division Benches of this court in P.RAMA RAO v. HIGH COURT OF A.P. (2000(1) ALT 210) and M.BIKSHAPATHI v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS (1999(6) ALD 270), with regard to jurisdiction of civil courts vis-à-vis Wakf Tribunal to entertain and decide the disputes relating to wakf and wakf property and other matters, which were filed in civil court after Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) coming into force and before the Constitution of the Tribunal as envisaged under Section 83 of the Act, in view of the specific bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts under Section 85 of the Act.

3. The learned single Judge (PSN, J) by order dated 26.6.2003 framed the following questions to be decided by a Division Bench:

1. Whether the suits instituted after the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force are to be filed before the Wakf Tribunal only, though the Wakf Tribunal was constituted on a later date? In other words, whether the views expressed by the respective Division Benches in the decisions referred to (1) and (2) supra require reconsideration?

2. What is the scope and ambit of Sections 6,7, 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995?

4. On reference of the above questions to the Division Bench, the matter was posted before the Division Bench comprising of PSN,J and GVS,J (Justice P.S. Narayana and Justice G.V.Seethapathy). Again by order dated 5.12.2009, the said Division Bench (Per PSN,J) on the ground that inasmuch as it is stated that the views expressed by the respective Division Benches referred to supra, continue to hold the field and there is no subsequent change of law i.e., an authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench or a Larger Bench in relation to the questions involved, referred the matter to the Full or Larger Bench. As per the administrative order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the matter is placed before this Full Bench for answering the reference.

5. The facts, which are not in serious dispute, are that the suit schedule property is wakf property and the plaint was presented on 23.12.1996 and it was numbered as O.S.No.18 of 1999 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, which is filed for partition of Acs. 9-00 of land and for recovery of past profits and future mesne profits. By the impugned order dated 13.12.2002, the court below returned the plaint for presenting before the Wakf Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. As stated above, the learned single judge in view of the judgments 1 and 2 supra, referred the matter to the Division Bench and again the Division Bench referred the matter to this Full Bench for answering the reference.

6. Before the Full Bench the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri A.Ramalingeshwara Rao, submitted that as on the date of the presentation of the plaint, though the Act came into force, no Tribunal was constituted and, therefore, though there is specific bar of jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 85, as there is no forum, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit. He submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is aptly answered by the Division Bench of this court in P.Rama Rao’s case (1 supra). With these submissions he sought to set aside the impugned order of the court below dated 13.12.2002 and to direct the court below to entertain and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

7. Sri G. Vidyasagar, who represented High Court, also supported the decision of the Division Bench in P.Rama Rao’s case (1 supra) and submitted that the Division Bench in P.Rama Rao’s case need not be reconsidered and there is also no conflict between the decisions of two co-ordinate Division Benches of this court referred to 1 and 2 supra.

8. On the other