INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1989 which had endorsed and confirmed the findings of the trial judge dated 25.10.1982 whereby the suit of the plaintiff i.e. of the Delhi Wakf Board had been decreed in its favour.

2. The plaintiff/respondent i.e. Delhi Wakf Board had filed a suit for possession against the defendant Hira Singh. It was alleged that the property in dispute i.e. a mosque at Village Oldenpur, Shahdra bearing No.610/403 is a wakf property and has been used as a wakf since time immemorial. This property has been notified in the notification of gazette on 3.12.1970; subsequently corrected by another notification dated 29.4.1978 published in the Delhi Gazette on 18.5.1978. The defendant's contention that he was in lawful possession of the suit property is liable to be rejected.

3. Defendant had contested the suit. The preliminary objection was that suit was time barred. Property is not a wakf property; the owner of the property Mohd.Ahsaan had sold it to the defendant in the year 1953. The premises in dispute is being used as a Gurdwara and is being managed by the Gurudwara Managing Committee. The earlier two suits filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed as withdrawn on 23.1.1970 and 22.8.1978. The present suit is not maintainable.

4. Trial judge had framed seven issues. They read as follows: 1. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit? OPP 3. Whether the property in dispute is a wakf property? OPP 4. Whether the Managing Committee is necessary party? OPD 5. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPP 6. Whether the defendant is in adverse possession since 1954. If so its effect? OPD 7. Relief.

5. Issue no.2 and Issue no.3 were the relevant issues. Testimony of PW-1 had been considered. He had deposed about the notification of the suit property in the gazette is as a wakf property. The gazette notification dated 3.12.1970 has been proved as Ex.P-2 and its corrigendum dated 29.4.1978 has been proved as Ex.P-3. Site plan Ex.P-7 had been proved through the version of PW-2. Testimony of PW-3 had also been considered; he had been deposed that the disputed property is a Masjid and a wakf property; muslim community used to pray in it; the masjid is in existence since long. Version of DW-1 and the documents of the earlier litigation between the parties i.e. Ex.DW-1/1, Ex.DW-1/2 &

Ex.DW-1/5 had been examined and repelled. Trial court decided all issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

6. The first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 4.2.1989 endorsed the findings of the trial judge.

7. This is a second appeal. After admission of the appeal, on 9.5.1989 the following questions of law were formulated. They have been described as questions of law but it is not disputed before this court that these may be read as substantial questions of law. They inter alia read as follows:

(1) Whether it was necessary for the appellant/defendant who was admittedly a third party and not connected with the alleged “Waqf” to file a suit for challenging the validity of the notification of Gazette dated 31.12.1970 and 18.5.1978 exhibits P/2 and P/3 publishing the disputed property as public Waqf, within one year of the dates of notifications?

2) Whether the limitation for the instant suit stood extended by virtue of the notification Ex.P/5 of the Central Govt. made with reference to Sec.3 of the Public Waqf (Extension of Limitation Act, 1959) upto 31st December, 1980, even though the appellant/defendant came into illegal possession in 1955-56?

(3) Whether the property in dispute was public Waqf and not a private Mosque, on the interpretation of the revenue records and especially the Jamabandi of the year 1943-44 Ex.P-6 and Plan Ex.P/7?

(4) Whether the appellant/defendant has acquired title to the property i