1. The Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.09.2007 in E.A.No.199 of 2006 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore (Wakf Tribunal).

2. The Wakf Tribunal viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore, while passing orders on 17.09.2007 in E.A.No.199 of 2006 filed by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner under Order 21 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying that he may be appointed as Mutawalli of Nawab Pettai Durgah (Khadirabad) etc., has among other things observed that ... the power of the 1st Respondent as Mutawalli has come to an end. The post is lying as vacant. The applicant belongs to one of branches of admitted genelogy and is also well educated and is a resident of Kollidam. Further, the properties concerned are private wakf and not a public wakf. Therefore, it is felt that the petitioner can very be appointed as Mutawalli of the Nawab Pettai Durgah and allowed the application as prayed for directing the parties to bear their own costs.

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ 1st Respondent, the order of the trial Court viz., Wakf Tribunal in allowing E.A.No.199 of 2006 dated 17.09.2007 is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and indeed the Tribunal has committed an error in rendering a finding that the wakf in question viz., Idullah Shutari Dargah at Nawabpettai (also known as Nawabpettai Dargah), is a Private Wakf Al-Aulad.

4. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent that once a Wakf is registered with the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Wakf Board as per Section 36 of the Wakf Act 1995, the Wakf Board has a jurisdiction to entertain an application for appointment and dismiss of Mutawalli and the Tribunal has given a wrong finding that the Wakf Board has no power to appoint the 1st Respondent/Petitioner as the Mutawalli of the Nawabpettai Dargah.

5. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that even in E.A.No.142 of 1994 proceedings, the Wakf Board has specifically pleaded that they have a power of supervise and managed the Nawabpettai Dargah and as well as they confirmed that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner has been appointed as the Mutawalli of the Nawabpettai Dargah.

6. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ 1st Respondent submits that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in differentiating the character of Wakf Alal Aulad and the Public Wakf and it is to be noted that Wakf Alal Aulad is the Wakf created solely for the benefit of the Descendants of the Wakf and the same has been permitted to be created as per Musalman Wakf Validating Act 1913.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent urges before this Court that the Petition Wakf is made under the Will executed by Mr.Syed Ghulam Mohideen in the year 1826 for the maintenance and upkeep of Nawabpettai Dargah and therefore, it can be construed only as a Public Wakf under the Act 1995.

8. Proceeding further, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent that the Tribunal has taken a wrong view that the Scheme Court has a power for appointment or removal of Mutawalli and it failed to note that the Petition Wakf has already registered before the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and the same has not been questioned by the 1st Respondent/ Petitioner and even after the Registration of Wakf, the Wakf Board has ample power to supervise and manage the affairs of Wakf, but these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Wakf Tribunal in a real perspective, which has resulted an erroneous order being passed against the Revision Petitioner.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent takes a plea that the Tribunal should hav