Jurisdiction of Civil Court not barred from entertaining suit for possession.

S.S. Subramani, J.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.9 of 1983, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tenkasi, is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant is the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Secretary.

2. The reliefs sought for in the plaint are: (1) Recovery of possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint as 2nd Schedule; (2) for a direction to the defendants 3 to 35 to put the plaintiff in possession of the schedule properties; (3) for costs of suit and (4) for such other reliefs.

.3. The material averments as given in the plaint are: The plaint mentioned properties belonged to Kalvathanayagam Taluk at Kalvathayagam Street, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi. The said Wakf was surveyed and the same was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 15. 1959. The said Wakf is managed by a Committee elected by the disciples of Kalvathanayagam, and, on the date of suit, the first respondent herein (1st defendant in the suit) was the elected Muthawalli of the Wakf. On 110. 1977, the Thaikka passed a Resolution seeking permission to dispose of the properties, and the Wakf Board, who is the plaintiff in the suit, on 212. 1978, directed the Superintendent of Wakfs, Kanyakumari, to submit a lay out plan along with a valuation report. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Wakfs, Kanyakumari, submitted a lay out plan and also a valuation report on 3. 1980. As per the lay out, the properties were divided into 57 plots, providing all amenities. As per resolution dated 30.9.1980 of the appellant, the lay out was published in one of the issues in Daily "Dhina Malar’ dated 212. 1981, calling for highest offer for the purchase of the plots. The intending bidders have to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000 as earnest money, on. or before 14. 1982 and have to present their offers before the plaintiff Board on 24. 1982. The period was extended till 25. 1982. The upset price was fixed at Rs.6 lakhs. The second defendant and one Janab Gulam Mohaideen sent their tenders to the plaintiff- Board. In the meeting held on 25. 1982, the tenders were opened and the offer of the second defendant for Rs.6,03,000 being the highest of the bids, was knocked off. The plaintiff thereafter passed a resolution accepting the tendor of the second defendant and directed him to deposit the balance sale price within 15 days so as to enable it (Board) to direct the Muthawalli to execute the necessary sale deed in favour of the second defendant. The balance amount has to be deposited with the plaintiff.

4. The second defendant did not deposit the amount within the stipulated time. Instead, the second defendant, in his letter dated 19. 1982, expressed his inability to remit the balance and wanted his right to be sold or assigned in favour of the other tenderer namely, Janab A.S.Gulab Mohaideen, and also wanted the balance amount to be collected from him. But, when he (Second defendant) appeared before the Board on 20.10.1982, requested for time to deposit the balance sale price. As per the resolution dated 20.10.1982, the appellant granted time to the second respondent (in the appeal) till 211. 1982. In between, i.e, on 210. 1982, the second respondent sought a clarification regarding the mode of payment. The plaintiff, as per letter dated 111. 1982, intimated the second defendant to deposit the balance sale consideration before 211. 1982, which was also not complied with by him.

5. In the Board Meeting of the plaintiff held on 211. 1982, an advocate appeared on behalf of the second defendant and produced a photo copy of a demand draftforRs.5,93,000 dated 20.11.1982drawn on the South Indian Bank Limited, George Town Branch. He wanted a week’s time to produce the original. He attained from producing the same on the ground that he was ill. The plaintiff- Board extended the time for production of the original draft till 4.00 p.m. on 27.] 1.1982. It was also decided in that meeting that in case the original draft is not produced before the appellant, Board before th