The defendant in the original suit O.S.No.72/2013 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, is the petitioner in the present civil revision petition. The above said suit was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for: (1) a declaration that the sale deed dated 02.07.2009 executed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit properties and registered as Document No.P.No.7/2575/2009 in Book No.1 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Parangipettai as null and void; (2) a direction against the petitioner herein/defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit properties to the respondent/plaintiff; (3) a further direction directing the petitioner herein/defendant to pay past mesne profits for three years prior to the filing of the suit and future mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of possession and (4) cost.

2. The revision petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the respondent/plaintiff should have approached the Competent Authority under the Wakf Act, 1995, as there is a bar for entertaining a civil suit in a Civil Court. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein/plaintiff, based on the contention that the revision petitioner/defendant, being a trespasser, filed the said application for rejection of the plaint in order to drag on the proceedings and squat on the Trust property as long as possible and that there is no provision of law barring such a suit in a civil court and that therefore, the petition seeking rejection of the plaint should be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, by an order dated 17.07.2014, sustained the objection raised by the respondent herein/plaintiff, rejected the contention of the revision petitioner herein/defendant and dismissed the said application I.A.No.102/2014 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The said order is challenged in the present revision.

4. The respondent has entered appearance and is represented by a counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.K.S.Ilangovan, arguing for M/s.Achari & Antoni Associates, the counsel on record for the respondent were heard. Certified copy of the impugned order, grounds of revision and copies of other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers were also perused.

5. This court paid its anxious considerations to the above said submissions and to the above mentioned documents.

6. It is not in dispute that Yusuf Sahib Trust and Charities, Parangipettai, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District is a wakf and the respondent herein/plaintiff Janab Mohamed Syed has filed the above said suit in the capacity of Trustee (Mutawalli) of the above said Trust (wakf). Of course the petitioner/defendant is also a wakf represented by its Chairman Dr.Abdul Rahman. The plaint contains an averment to the effect that the suit properties had been notified as wakf properties belonging to Yusuf Sahib Trust of which Mohamed Syed Maraikayar was the Mutawalli; that the wakf had been created for educational purposes, besides religious activities; that a sale agreement came to be entered into between Mohamed Syed Maraikayar, Mutawalli of Yusuf Sahib Trust and Charities and the revision petitioner/defendant for sale of the suit properties of Dr.Abdul Rahman Trust represented by its Chairman Dr.Abdul Rahman on 02.08.2007, subject to certain conditions regarding induction of the above said Mohamed Syed Maraikayar, the Mutawalli of Yusuf Sahib Trust and Charities, as one of the Directors of the revision petitioner/defendant Trust; that as per the agreement, without even getting the permission of the Wakf Board, a sale deed came to be executed on 20.07.2009 in favour of the revision petitioner herein/defendant and that since the permission of the Wa