The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of issuing a pre-suit notice under Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1954, as a condition precedent to filing a suit against the Wakf Board.

The Appellant/10th Respondent/10th Defendant has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.03.1992 in A.S.No.41 of 1990 passed by the Learned Sub-Judge, Kancheepuram.

2.The first Appellate Court Viz., Sub-Judge, Kancheepuram, in its judgment in A.S.No.41 of 1990 dated 26.03.1992, as among other things has held that the Defendants 1 to 9 are liable to repay a sum of Rs.8,045.06/- to the 1st respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff and resultantly allowed the appeal filed by the 1st Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff with costs.

3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the 1st Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff and the Defendants no one witness was examined and no documents were marked.

4. Dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.41 of 1990 dated 26.03.1992 by the first Appellate Authority Viz., Sub-Judge, kancheepuram, the Appellant/10th Respondent/10th Defendant has projected this Second Appeal before this Court.

5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court.

1. Whether a public statutory body and its subordinates can be held personally liable while discharge of their official duties?

2. Is it not mandatory to give suit notice under Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1954, before the Plaintiff institutes the suit against the appellant and its subordinates i.e., defendants 1 to 10?

3. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the violation of the provisions of Section 56 of the Wakf Act?

6. Finding on Substantial Questions of law: 2 and 3:- According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/10th Respondent/10th Defendant, the first Appellate Court has not taken into account of the fact that no suit notice under Section 56 of the Wakf Act (now Section 89 of the Act) has been given by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff/Appellant by granting two months time before filing of the present suit and this omission goes to the root of the matter and as such the suit filed by the 1st Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law.

7. In support of the contention that the issuance of notice under Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (now Section 89 of the Act) is a condition precedent to the filing of the suit itself, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant cites the decision of this Court in Rahmath Bi and another Vs. State Wakf Board, AIR 1982 MADRAS 202, wherein, it is held as follows: The Court cannot make exceptions or qualifications to the explicit terms of S.56 on account of consideration of hardship and absence of prejudice or detriment. A defect, as in the present case, cannot be equated to a formal defect contemplated by O.23, R.1(3) Civil P.C. It is a redical defect going to the root of the claim of the plaintiff (petitioner). S.56 is express, explicit, mandatory and admits of no exceptions. Therefore, the issue of a notice under S.56 is a condition precedent to the institution of the suit itself. Cases where suits have been instituted without the issue of a notice in accordance with S.56 as in the instant case, are cases which clearly fall under O.7, R.11(d) C.P.C.

8. He also relies on the decision of this Court in C.A.Khaja Mohidden Sahib and others Vs. The Madras State Wakf Board and others, AIR 1973 MADRAS 104, wherein, at paragraph No. 8, it is laid down as follows: Though the learned counsel seriously contended that the notice under Section 56 of the Act was not mandatory. I do not think it requires any serious consideration. Section 56, which is analogous to Section 80, Civil P.C. came up for consideration in this Court in the decision reported in M.S.Wakf Board Vs. Jamal Muhammad 1966-2 Mad LJ 104, wherein it was held that the notice under Section 56 is mandatory. This is a decision by a Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the point does not call for any further consideration.

9. He also seeks in aid of the decision of this Court in M.S.Abdul Hameed Vs. S.M.Sheik Mohammed and ot