This civil revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 is directed against judgment and decree, dated 3.1.2008 in OS No.124 of 2001 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf tribunal, Hyderabad, where under and whereby the original suit filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs was decreed duly ordering eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule land.

2. Heard.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the Wakf Tribunal simply placed reliance on EX.A2 proceedings, dated 17.10.1997, issued by Wakf Board, to show that respondent No.1 was appointed as temporary Mutawalli that subsequently the Wakf Board contested in the OA filed by father of respondent No.1 stating that the committee was constituted to manage the Wakf property; that the burden is on the respondents to show that the property in question is a Wakf property as appointment of R 1 under EX.A2 is temporary; that temporary appointment will not give any right for respondent No.1 to file the suit for eviction and therefore, they pray to set aside the judgment and decree.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri E. Manohar, appearing for respondent No.1 contended that since the dispute is relating to Wakf property, the Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction; that EX.A 1 Gazette Notification, dated 12.7.1984 and Gift Settlement Deeds Exs.A4 to Al 0 would clearly go to show that it is a Wakf property; that the petitioners have not •filed any document to show that the property does not belong to Wakf property and therefore, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same.

5. There cannot be any dispute that in view of the decision reported in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 (6) ALD 76 (SC) = (2010) 8 SCC 726, when there is adjudication of dispute only concerning the eviction of a tenant, the civil Court alone has got jurisdiction. But, in case of a dispute with regard to Wakf property, certainly the Wakf Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction. On this aspect, in the said judgment, it is held thus:

"In the cases at hand, the Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a Wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from what is admittedly Wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the civil Court and not before the Tribunal."

6. Therefore, a specific plea has been taken by the petitioners that respondent No.2 is not the owner of the property. They have taken a plea that one Mohd. Abdullah Shareef was the owner purportedly in consideration of payment of Nazool Nama. So basing on the plea, a specific issue has been framed to the effect that whether the suit property is the Wakf property or not? DW 1 has categorically stated that his ancestor has purchased the suit property. When a suggestion was given to him that the suit schedule property is a Wakf property, the sari1e was denied. As there is a dispute between the parties relating to Wakf property, certainly the Wakf Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction to try the suit. PW 1 is respondent No.1, who stated that by virtue of EX.A2 proceedings, dated 17.10.1997 issued by the Wakf Board, he was appointed as temporary Mutawalli for the subject institution. A perusal of EX.A2 shows that respondent No.1 was appointed as temporary Mutawalli of the subject institution. Under EX.A 1, the property was duly notified in the Official Gazette. As there was no contra evidence adduced by the petitioners that the property is not a Wakf property, a categorical finding has been recorded that respondent No.2 is the owner of the property in question. When the petitioners are denying about the nature of the property, it is for them to establish that it is not a Wakf property. Except the oral statement of DWI, no other evidence is