Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 66 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent is the second plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 2 to 4 and 6 in the suit. It must be noted that the original plaintiff died and the second plaintiff got added as his legal representative in the suit itself. The suit was filed for a declaration that the lease claimed by the first defendant is null and void and the first defendant has no right to enjoy and consequently, the relief of possession was also asked for with damages, past and future. The suit was filed on the following allegations: Under the wakfnam a dated 20.12.1931, the suit properties were the subject-matter of endowment to Hameem Palli Madarsa Wakf absolutely and the first plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the turn huqdars. The second defendant, without any authority, leased the scheduled properties to the first defendant. The alleged lease in favour of the first defendant is not valid since all the huqdars had not consented for the same and the second defendant alone could not permit the first defendant to enter into and cultiv