A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This revision petition is filed challenging the decision of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode holding that no wakf is created in respect of the plaint schedule properly, which is the subject-matter of a suit. The first defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff in the suit is the first respondent herein.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff approached the Munsiff's Court, Thalasscry in O.S. No. 324 of 2007 for a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the revision petitioner/first defendant. The suit was filed on 21-11-2007. In the suit, the revision petitioner contended that the suit property is a wakf and registered with the Wakf Board. In view of the fact that the suit property is registered as a wakf, the learned Munsiff returned the plaint for representation before proper forum. Accordingly, the first respondent/plaintiff re-presented the suit before the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The suit was renumbered as O.S. 45 of 2009. Thereafter, again the plaint was returned to the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery. The Munsiff's Court, Thalassery again returned the suit for presentation before the Wakf Tribunal in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf [2010 (3) KLT 862 (SC)]. Thereafter, the suit was numbered as O.S. No. 51 of 2011.

3. Pending suit, the original reliefs were amended by incorporating prayer for declaration, recovery of possession and injunction. The prayer also was amended to include the relief that the suit property is not wakf property. The tribunal, after the trial, concluded that suit property is not a wakf property. It is challenging this finding, the revision [petitioner/first defendant filed this revision.

4. Heard Sri Saji, P.M., learned counsel appearing for the revision [petitioner, Sri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri K. Shibili Naha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Wakf Board.

5. Sri Saji, P.M., learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submitted that the Wakf Tribunal has no original jurisdiction and the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Wakf Tribunal in respect of matters covered by Sections 6 and 7 are in the nature of appellate jurisdiction and not in the nature of original jurisdiction. Therefore, the suit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable and further that going by the nature of the order impugned in this revision, such an order cannot be passed by the tribunal. The first respondent/plaintiff should have challenged the order passed by the Wakf Board and the registration of wakf in the manner known to law and that the prayer for a declaration that the registration of the wakf and the order of the Wakf Board are not binding on him, is not a pro]per legal remedy.

6. The counsel contended that going by the recitals in Ext. B-1 it can be seen that it constitutes a wakf-alal-aulad attracting the definition of Section 3(r) (iii) of the Wakf Act, 1995. He submitted that what is required is that the purpose should be either pious, religious or charitable and that it is not necessary that all the three ingredients should be available to attract the definition of 'wakf-alal-aulad'. The learned counsel submitted that going by sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Wakf Act, an order passed by the Wakf Board shall be final unless it is revoked or modified by the tribunal. The revocation or modification is in the nature of challenging that order in an appellate forum and that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal in a matter like this would be in the nature of an appellate jurisdiction. The counsel submitted that the Wakf Tribunal did not deal with the various clauses in Ext. B-1 and their impact on the interpretation of the deed to arrive at a conclusion as to whether Ext. B-1 constitutes a wakf-alal-aulad. He submitted that the tribunal did not consider the value of the property, the income therefrom, the income that would be made avail