ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Wakf Tribunal in Wakf O.P. No. 09 of 2003. The said Wakf O.P was filed by the petitioners herein seeking the following reliefs:

(a) that the succession to the office of muthawalli in respect of the west chinthamani mosque, Trichy is hereditary

(b) that the appointment of the muthawallis shall be from the descendants of Rustum Bi

(c) that the petitioners are qualified to be appointed as committee members to conduct the affairs of the mosque.

(d) that the deed executed by the wakf Rustum Bi on 03.08.1881 is a Wakf deed dealing with the line of succession for the office of Muthawalliship as also concerning the administration of the mosque and the wakf

(e) and, as such, the appointment of the petitioners as committee members is legal and valid

(f) for costs of petition

2. According to the petitioners, they are descendants of the Wakif Rustum Bi, who has created a Wakf Deed dated 03.06.1881 dedicating certain properties to Chinthamani Mosque constructed by her. According to the petitioners, the said deed also prescribes the rule of succession to the office of mutavalli as hereditary. The proforma prepared by the Wakf Board also states that the rule of succession is hereditary. Contending that the first respondent herein, who is no more, was an encroacher and he had created the situation, where the legal heirs of the original Wakif Rustum Bi were prevented from being appointed as mutavallis to the Wakf, the petitioners came up with the above prayers.

3. This application was resisted by the first respondent contending that the petitioners are acting against the interest of the Wakf and in view of the Shariat law, the office of muthawalli cannot devolve by hereditary succession. The Wakf Boad, which was cited as the second respondent, filed a counter stating that the petition filed without issuing notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995, is not maintainable. The Wakf Board also stated that the petitioners have to establish the claim that the Wakf Deed dated 03.06.1881 prescribes hereditary succession.

4. Pending Wakf O.P. No. 09 of 2003, an Interlocutory Application was also filed by the first petitioner challenging the order of the Wakf Board approving the lease of the property in favour of one M.A. Sathakathulla instead of Selvaraj, as recommended by him. The Wakf O.P and the application in I.A. No. 54 of 2006 were taken up together for disposal.

5. The first petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and 4 other witnesses were examined on their side. Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent N.M. Shahul Hameed was examined as R.W. 1 and Exs. B1 to B.8 were marked. In I.A. No. 54 of 2006, Exs. B1 and B2 were marked.

6. The Wakf Tribunal, upon a consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that though the Wakf Deed provides for hereditary succession to the office of mutavalli, the petitioners have not proved that such hereditary succession was in fact adopted in appointment of mutavalli to the Wakf in question. The Wakf Tribunal also concluded that the petitioners have acted against the interest of the Wakf inasmuch as they have claimed title to some of the Wakf properties. The Tribunal also found that in view of the Shariat Law Amendment Act, 1949 and the judgment of this Court reported in 1992(2) LW 685 (Syed Ansamddin Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by its Secretary and others), there cannot be hereditary succession to the office of mutavalli. On the aforesaid conclusion, the Wakf Tribunal dismissed the Wakf Original Petition as well as the application in I.A. No. 54 of 2006.

7. In so far as I.A. No. 54 of 2006 is concerned, the Wakf Tribunal found that the action of the Wakf Board in approving the lease in favour of M.A. Sathakathulla is valid since the period of appointment of the petitioners had expired and it was