The plaintiff's establishment of a better title than the defendants and the inapplicability of adverse possession under Section 107 of the Wakf Act were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: CRP(MD).No.2139 of 2010: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 83(9) Proviso of Wakf Act, 1995, to set aside the judgement and decree order dated 22.02.2010 made in O.S.No.144 of 2003 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Sub Court, Tuticorin to decree the same.

CRP(MD).No.2140 of 2010: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 83(9) Proviso of Wakf Act, 1995, to set aside the judgement and decree order dated 22.02.2010 made in O.S.No.145 of 2003 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Sub Court, Tuticorin to decree the same.

CRP(MD).No.2141 of 2010: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 83(9) Proviso of Wakf Act, 1995, to set aside the judgement and decree order dated 22.02.2010 made in O.S.No.147 of 2003 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Sub Court, Tuticorin to decree the same.)

1. All the three revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.144, 145 and 147 of 2003 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Thoothukudi challenging the dismissal of the suits filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation of the schedule mentioned properties.

2. It is the contentions of the plaintiff in all the three suits that the suit schedule properties belong to Kothuba Pallivasal Wakf Puraiyur. The said Wakf is a public religious Wakf and it has been surveyed and registered. According to the plaintiff pallivasal, patta for the schedule mentioned lands stands in the name of Wakf.

3. The plaintiff had contended that the defendants in each one of the suits have taken lease of the vacant site and they are enjoying the same as lessee by putting up superstructure over the same and they have no manner of title over the property except the lease hold right. The tenants had paid vacant site rent up to July 2001 and thereafter, they have not chosen to pay rent. A notice was issued to the tenants under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the defendants w.e.f. 31st of October 2002 and claiming arrears of rent. The defendants have sent a reply denying title of the plaintiff pallivasal and claiming title upon them.

4. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendants'' father were the tenants of the properties and after his demise, the defendants had also paid rent accepting the title of the pallivasal and therefore, they are estopped from disputing the title on the Wakf. In view of the denial of title in the reply notice, the plaintiff pallivasal had filed the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for payment of damages.

5. The defendants had filed a written statement contending that the schedule mentioned property do not belong to the plaintiff pallivasal. The schedule mentioned property is not a vacant site as contended by the plaintiff, but the defendants have put up residential houses over the same and they are paying house tax. The defendants had further contended that Patta alleged to have been granted in favour of the pallivasal is not a genuine one. At no point of time, the defendants or their ancestor were tenants of the pallivasal and they have never paid rent to the pallivasal. The defendants had further contended that the measurement and the boundaries incorporated in the plaint schedule properties are not correct.

6. The defendants had further contended that they are in possession of the property on their own for more than 60 years and they have acquired title by adverse possession. In view of the fact that they have never been tenants of the plaintiff pallivasal, the question of cancelling the tenancy would not arise.

7. The plaintiff had filed Exhibits A1 to A15 documents and examined PW1 of on their side. The defendants have filed Exhibits A1 to A8 documents and examined DW1 on their side.

8. The Wakf Tribunal while interpreting the proforma report of the Wakf Board, found that Survey No.52 belongs to the plaintiff pallivasal and it is Wakf property. However, the total extent of Su