Request of remand of the case negatived.

1. This second appeal is by one of the legal representatives to the second defendant, i.e., 6th defendant in O.S.No.1057 of 1976, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) declaring that the Muslim Jamath of Eachampatti alone is entitled to the management of the Kabarathan and the usufructs of the trees standing thereon;

(b) and as consequential relief for the permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men and agents from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property with fruit bearing trees by the plaintiff;

(c) for costs of suit payable by the defendants to plaintiff from defendants;

(d) and to grant such further or other reliefs…..”

3. The suit was institution on 4.11.1976, by the Secretary of the Jamath. He has been examined as P.W.1 in the suit.

4. The material averments in the plaint may be summarised thus:

“It is filed as a representative suit under O.1, Rule 8, C.P.C. The suit property has been allotted and set apart as Kabarathan (burial-ground) of the Muslim Jamath of Eachampatti, and the same has been enjoyed as such by them from time immemorial. It is said that there are about 150 palmyrah trees and 105 tamarind trees, besides other trees, and the Jamath has been realising the income from the trees. The income is utilised for the upkeep of the mosque and other religious and charitable activities of Muslims during festival times. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the scheduled property which is included in Old Survey No.82 and New Survey No. 173, having an area of 7.88 hectares, is in the effective possession of the Jamath. It was originally an inam, and the inam tenure was abolished and the property was treated as communal property, and patta was not issued to any one. Plaintiff alone is in possession and management of ‘Karbarsthan’ and the trees stand-ing thereon. As defendants 1 and 2 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the trees on 26.2.1974, a suit was filed by the plaintiff as O.S.No.295 of 1974 against them. An ad-interim injunction was granted against defendants 1 and 2, which was made absolute after hearing me predecessor of the appellant. Second defendant also filed a suit against the Jamath as O.S.No.187 of 1974. When the suit came for trial, he filed an application that he is not pressing the same. Therefore, the suit was dismissed on 14.4.1976. O.S.No.295 of 1974 which also came for trial, could not be proceeded with due to some formal defect. Therefore, an application as filed seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The same was allowed. Thereafter, plaintiff issued a notice under Sec.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Government has not so far sent any reply. It is said that after the filing of O.S.No.295 of 1974, the first defendant therein left the village. The third defendant, which is the Wakf Board, has also no jurisdiction over the property, and it has been impleaded only to avoid technical defects. Defendants 1 and 2 who were also having no manner of right over the schedule mentioned property are threatening to interferewith the right of the plaintiff, and are making arrangements to take the usufructs, and that necessitated the filing of the suit, for the reliefs stated above.”

5. A detailed written statement was filed by defendants 1 and 2. According to them, neither the Jamath nor the Secretary has possession over any property, and the Muslim Jamath of Eachampatti is not really in existence. The further allegation mat me income from the property is used for the upkeep of the mosque and other religious activities of the Muslims is also denied. According to mem, the suit property forms part of Rahmathullah Sha Shutter Wakf, a Sunni Wakf. It was in the management of the then Muthavalli Syed Mohammed Ghouse Shutteri. The properties were endowed with under T.D.831, and were enjoyed by the Mu