Hon'ble GUPTA, J.— These two appeals have been filed by different sets of defendants against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 21.4.1982 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 23.3.1971, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession of the land in dispute, shown in red colour in the site plan, Ex.5, and described in para 3 of the plaint, against all the defendants, so also passing decree for the mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery, upon payment of requisite court fees, if any.

2. The necessary facts are, that the plaintiff, the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, Jaipur, filed the present suit against four defendants being Bulidan Singh, Ramgopal, Sumitra Devi and Shivji, for recovery of possession, alleging inter-alia, that in the city of Jodhpur, outside Sojatigate on Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road in its north there is a big chunk of land situated between Sojatigate Ki Bari and Tejnarayan Kak's land, which land is popularly known as Chand Shah Ka Takiya. This entire land was pleaded to be a graveyard of the Muslims of Jodhpur in the old times, and at present also there are innumerable graves available. There also exists remainants of a mosque, a well, and a Hujara. It is also pleaded that earlier this land was used as common graveyard and is, therefore, a Wakf property. The Commissioner also surveyed the land under Section 4 of the Wakf Act and submitted a report, reporting it to be a Wakf property and the Wakf Board notified the property as a Wakf property vide publication in the official Gazette dated 14.4.1966, which notification has not been challenged under Section 6 of the Wakf Act. With this background, it is pleaded, that vide notification dated 7.3.1968 the Wakf Board has taken the management of the Wakf directly under Section 43 of the Act since 4.2.1965. Then it is pleaded that after partition of India, many persons started committing encroachment on the above land and in that process, started dismantling southern boundary wall and erecting enclosures. In this process, the defendants No.1 and 2 being Bulidan Singh and Ramgopal also encroached upon 60x70 feet portion of the land, by breaking the wall in the year 1953, then erected stone slabs, and started letting out the land. The description of the precise portion, said to have been encroached by defendants No.1 and 2 has been pleaded in para 3. Then it is pleaded, that the defendants No.2, 3 and 4 have been inducted as tenants by defendant No.1, while the defendant No.1 has no right to so let out the land. Thus, it was pleaded, that the defendants are trespassers, and mesne profits were claimed. It was also pleaded, that the cause of action arose in 1953, and by virtue of the provisions of the Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959 the suit is within time. With this pleading, the decree for possession and mesne profits was claimed.

3. Two separate written statements were filed, one by defendant No.1 Bulidan Singh, and other by the remaining three defendants No.2 to 4. The defendant No.1 in the written statement denied existence of any graves, Masjid or Hujara and denied it to be Wakf property. It was also pleaded that in this chunk of land many shops are constructed and open land is lying beyond those shops. Identity and boundaries of the land were not disputed. Then in para 2 it is pleaded, that the defendant No.1 has always seen Nanne Shah to be the owner of the land, who had been letting out portions to different persons, and had been realising rent, and in that process defendant No.1 has also taken the portion of the land in question at rent from Nanne Shah, at a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. It was denied that any encroachment was done, rather it was pleaded, that the defendant No.1 took 60x70 feet portion of the land on rent from Nanne Shah, then raised a temporary construction thereon, and inducted defendants No.2, 3 and 4 as sub-tenants, with the