The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of dedication to Wakf, the publication requirements under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, and the limitations on challenging Wakf property.

The Judgment in O.S.No.67 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, is under challenge in this revision. This revision has been preferred by the 1st defendant – Wakf Board.

2.The respondents 1 & 2 / plaintiff in O.S.No.67 of 2005 have filed the suit for a declaration that the suit property exclusively belonged to the first plaintiff. According to the 1st plaintiff, his father had executed a deed of Wakf dated 12. 1936 for the purpose of constructing a Madarassa. According to him, the Madarassa was not constructed during his fathers life time and the dedication has been completely failed and the object of the deed of Wakf dated 12. 1936 executed under Ex.A.1 was not materialized. So the 1st plaintiff would claim that the property does not vest with the Wakf. It is further been admitted that the first plaintiffs father had also executed Ex.A.2, another deed of Wakf, dated 4. 1941 dedicating all other properties except the property covered under Ex.A.1 for the purpose of creating another Wakf. The fact remains that the property already dedicated by the first plaintiffs father under Ex.A.1 – deed of Wakf dated 12. 1936, was excluded in Ex.A.2 deed of Wakf. According to the 1st plaintiff, in the revenue records the plaint schedule property is described as the personal property of the first plaintiff and that the first defendant – Wakf Board has failed to notify this property in the Government Gazette as the Wakf property and that the suit property does not find a place in the register maintained for the Wakf property with the first defendant – Wakf Board (Revision Petitioner herein). Hence, according to the first plaintiff, he had entered into an agreement with the second plaintiff on 210. 2001 in respect of the property covered under Ex.A.1 dated 12. 1936 for sale. Now, with the help of the second defendant, the first defendant is restraining the first plaintiff from executing a sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the second plaintiff. Hence, the suit for declaration that the suit property is exclusively belonged to the first plaintiff and also for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant (Wakf Board) from any manner interfering with the first plaintiff from dealing with the property.

3.The first defendant has resisted the suit as the same is not maintainable and that the first defendant has not abandoned the idea of constructing the Madarassa as directed in Ex.a.1 deed of wakf. Once the property is endowed in favour of Wakf it will assume the character of Wakf property and that after the dedication, the plaintiffs cannot interfere in the same and that the Muthawalli cannot claim any independent right in respect of the Wakf Property and he is estopped from claiming as such and the plaintiff has no semblance of right or interest in the property. Once the property has become Wakf property it cannot be characterized as personal property of the first plaintiff. Once the property has been dedicated as the Wakf Property, thereafter the first plaintiff cannot claim right in respect of the said property on the basis of the entries made in the revenue records as personal property. The exparte decree passed in O.S.No.42 of 2001 has been set aside and on finding that the plaintiffs cannot proceed with O.S.No.42 of 2001, has filed this suit after not pressing the order suit. The plaintiffs are estopped from re-agitating the same once again. The suit is barred by res-judicata.

4.The learned trial Judge had framed six issues. The first plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one Malimar as P.W.2. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 were examined on the side of the defendants. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Trial Judge, the