Additional evidence can be received in interest of justice to clear up obscure areas of evidence.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirunelveli in A.S.No.67 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the learned Additional District Munsif, Thirunelveli, in O.S.No.467 of 1982. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal.

.2. Thesuit was filed for a declaration that Melapalayam Rahmania High School, belonged to the plaintiff/ Pallivasal and that the first defendant should hand over the administration of the School to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the High School belongs to Pallivasal and was established 80 years prior to the suit by collection of funds from the members of Jamath. The School is being conducted in the property at No.35 belonging to the plaintiff in the same street. Since then the members of Jamath had been providing funds for the administration of Pallivasal and also the School through the Pallivasal. For the purpose of administering the properties belonging to Pallivasal, a Committee was constituted (Therku Mohideen Pallivasal Mutheru Committee) and registered on 211. 1958 and the said Committee is in charge of the administration of the properties including the school. When the school was at the stage of an elementary school, Hasan Abu Bucker, grandfather of the defendant was the Muthavalli and he was also the Manager and the Correspondent of the School. After his death, his son (father of the first defendant) Syed Thamim Sahib was appointed as the Manager of the School. During his period, the School was upgraded to a High School under the control of the Committee. He died in the year 1956 and the Educational Authorities recognised the first defendant as the Manager and Correspondent. The Committee was representing the Educational Authorities that the School should be registered as belonging to Pallivasal. By a communication dated 7. 1981 the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, had informed the Committee to obtain appropriate orders from the Civil Court. A legal notice was issued in this context to the first defendant on 3. 1982 to which by letter dated 13. 1982 the first defendant sent a reply claiming that the School was his ancestral property and the plaintiff has no manner of any right over the school. Hence, the suit. Since the property was Wakf property, Wakf Board was impleaded as the second defendant. The first defendant has absolutely no right over the property. The rental amount of the building which was paid as a grant by the Government was paid to the plaintiff. The first defendant was bound to hand over the management of the school to the plaintiff.

.3. Thefirst defendant in his written statement denied the constitution of the Committee. There was no Secretary for the Committee and hence the suit as filed was not maintainable. There was a Sangam bearing the name of "Therku Mohideen Pallivasal Mutheru Committee" which became defunct due to the failure of the Committee to renew the registration and the registration was cancelled in 1977. Therefore, the suit filed by the Committee was not legally valid. There was no properly elected executive Committee. The School was not established by collection of funds by the members of Jamath and did not belong to the Pallivasal. From the year 1922 to 1936, the plaintiff’s grand-father was managing and running the school in an excellent manner and in his personal capacity and after him the plaintiff’s father looked after the administration. He also moved the Educational Authority to recognise his rights and by communication dated 27. 1936, District Educational Officer also duly approved the plaintiff’s father as the owner and manager of the school. Since 1936 the plaintiff’s father was administering the school and in the year 1960 the school was upgraded as a Middle School. After his death in the year 1976, the plaintiff was recognised as the Manager and the Correspondent with the consent of the other legal heirs, by order dated 111. 1977. In the ye