Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. The challenge by means of the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 8.7.1996 whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff/Wakf Board was decreed for possession against the appellants/defendants for the property Shahji Ghatali Ka Gumbad, Khasra No. 9 Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW3/1.

2. The facts of the case are that the subject property was recognized as Wakf property by virtue of a notification Ex.PW1/2 dated 16.4.1970. In terms of the provision of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 as applicable in the year 1970, if any person disputed the property as not being a Wakf property, such a person had to file a suit in a Civil Court within one year of the publication of the list of Wakfs under sub section (2) of Section 6. No such suit was filed by the appellants/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession on 2.1.1986.

3. The appellants/defendants appeared and contested the suit and took up various defences. The first defence was that they were displaced persons from Pakistan and were therefore allotted the property by government officials. The second defence was that the appellants were in adverse possession of the subject property.

4. The trial Court after completion of pleadings framed issues on 22.7.1991 and which read as under:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit land from the defendants? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitlement to get the super structure demolished by the defendant on the suit land? OPP

3. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property? If so, its effect? OPD

8. Relief."

5. Out of the above issues, we are concerned with issue Nos. 1, 3 and 7 as it is the decision on these issues which have been challenged by the appellants. These issues have been dealt with together by the trial Court from paras 33 to 62 of the impugned judgment and decree wherein it has been held that the respondent was the owner and that the appellants had not become the owners by adverse possession.

6. The trial Court while dealing with issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 has arrived at the finding/conclusion that the respondent was the undoubted owner of the suit property because the subject property was declared as Wakf property by the notification dated 16.4.1970 exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 and to which there was no challenge. I agree with this conclusion because once the property was declared as a Wakf property, any person who sought to challenge the ownership of the Wakf Board had to file a suit in a Civil Court under the Wakf Act, 1954, as per Section 6, to challenge the publication of the property as a wakf property and which admittedly the appellants failed to do. The consequence was, and was so rightly held by the trial Court, that the subject property is undoubtedly a Wakf property and the respondent was entitled to file the suit for possession of the Wakf property. The trial Court has further disbelieved the plea of adverse possession as was the case of the appellants/defendants, on the ground that the appellants claimed to have been allotted the property by the government and since the ownership was claimed by allotment, there did not arise any issue of claiming adverse possession to the self ownership. Further, the trial Court has also arrived at a finding that the adverse possession has not been proved as a matter of fact and that merely because the appellants are sitting on the wakf property since 1947-48 will not mean that this possession will be adverse possession. Mere actual physical possession and adv