JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated, 24.03.2000, rendered in A.S. No. 48 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Madurai, confirming the decree and judgment, dated, 11.08.1993 rendered in O.S. No. 637 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Madurai.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit schedule properties are Wakf properties and for recovery of possession from the defendants. The trial Court granted a decree only with regard to the prayer for declaration of title. But it was dismissed with regard to the other prayers. The plaintiff filed A.S. No. 48 of 1997 before Principal District Court, Madurai. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

3. In the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that the suit property belongs to Hazarath Aliyarsha Darga. The said Darga is a Wakf property, in which, the plaintiff is the Muthavalli. According to the plaintiff, the Darga is duly registered as a Wakf with the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board. As a Muthavalli, the plaintiff and his family members have been residing in the eastern portion of the suit schedule property. The defendants' father had requested the plaintiff to permit them to occupy the western portion of the building for his residential purposes. Based on the said request, permission was granted to the defendants to occupy the western portion of the suit schedule properties. The possession of the defendants in the suit schedule property is only in the nature of a permissive occupation. The plaintiff further contended that since the defendants interfered in the conducting of festival in the Darga, he filed O.S. No. 5 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif, Madurai Town as against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff’s management of the Darga. The trial Court decreed the suit. As against the same, the defendants filed A.S. No. 144 of 1988 before First Additional Subcourt, Madurai. The appeal was also dismissed. As against the same, the defendants have not filed any second appeal.

4. The plaintiff further contended that when O.S. No. 5 of 1986 was pending, the defendants have filed an application before Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to remove the plaintiff from the post of Muthavalliship and to appoint them as Muthavallis for the Darga. After enquiry, the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board dismissed their application on 25.04.1987. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants are acting against the interest of the Wakf and they have also demolished the western portion of the building without the permission of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff further contended that he sent a legal notice on 23.06.1990, demanding them to surrender possession of the suit building to plaintiff. The defendants sent a reply notice on 29.06.1990, contending that the defendants and their ancestors are the Huqdars of the Darga and they are in possession of the suit building only in the capacity of the Huqdars of the Darga. In the reply notice, they had further contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties over the statutory period and they have obtained prescriptive title over the same by adverse possession. Since the defendants have disputed the title of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff is constraint to file the present suit for declaration that the suit schedule property is a Wakf property and for recovery of possession from the defendants.

6. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the present suit filed in the individual capacity as Muthavalli of the Darga is not maintainable without impleading the Darga. The defendants further contended that the suit Wakf is a private Wakf. The said