( 1 ) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals raise certain common questions of law and therefore they are disposed of by this common order. The two important questions of law which arise in there two appeals are:- (1) As regards the forum for appeal in the inquiry under sec. 37 (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 hereinafter referred to as the Code and the remedies which have to be exhausted before filing a suit in this connection as well as the nature of the suit which can be filed and (2) As regards the applicability of presumption under sec. 110 of the Evidence Act in such cases where a claim is sought to be decided under sec. 37 (2) of the Code. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 21 of 1966 the question is regarding the suit land marked A B C D E which is said to belong to the plaintiffs Muslim Masjid as wakf property. The two managers of the said wakf have filed the present suit. The plaintiffs claim that formerly there were houses on the suit land and a portion thereof was used as a Vada. In 1878 A. D. by an arrangement as per Ex. 40 the leading Muslims of Undhela kept Fakir Kalusha and others for looking after the wakf property and the Fakir was allowed to occupy the houses and the land. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that Fakir Kalushas sons Jenasha and Muradsha mortgaged some of the land to Haribhai Dalji and Zaverbhai Dalji for Rs. 30/by Ex. 41 on July 7 1887 is the corresponding date for Ashad Sub 5 of Samvat Year 1939. Thereafter by the document Ex. 79 the said mortgage was redeemed on April 11 1907 which is the corresponding date of Samvat Year 1964. During the continuance of the mortgage the land remained in the possession of the mortgagee - The suit houses occupied by Fakir had fallen down in the course of time - It was the case of the plaintiffs that this land was given to various potters for preparing bricks under the various rent notes which have been produced at the rent specified therein by the managers of the property. In 1944 an inquiry had been instituted by the Mamlatdar where a different portion A F D adjoining this land was held to be Government land which was found to have been encroached. It was the plaintiffs case that at that time the present land A B C D E was held to be Wakf property. Thereafter in 1950 on some application the Mamlatdar instituted inquiry on May 16 1961 and decided that the suit land A B C D E was Government land and directed the removal of the structures therefrom. An appeal had been filed to the Prant Officer which was dismissed on March 31 1952 The appeal to the Collector also failed and even the Bombay Revenue Tribunal dismissed the final appeal by the order dated April 12 1955 Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the present suit for a declaration that the suit property belonged to Wakf Masjid at Undhela and that the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar which was confirmed by these authorities declaring the suit land to be Government land was illegal null and void. The plaintiffs also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the State Government from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit land. The trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs suit by declaring that the suit land was of the ownership and possession of the Masjid Wakf at Undhela of which the plaintiffs were the managers and that the orders of the Mamlatdar District Deputy Collector and Collector and the Bombay Revenue Tribunal were illegal ultra vires and void and consequently a permanent injunction was issued restraining the defendant State from interfering with the plaintiffs? possession of the suit land. The lower appellate Court has however dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The learned Single Judge Raju J. by his order dated February 22 1966 dismissed the Second Appeal. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the ground that the 1944 inquiry was without jurisdiction as on that day the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to hold such an inquiry in the absence of any delegation of the powers of