The property was determined to be Wakf, with sales executed without the Wakf Board's sanction declared void, affirming the Muthavalli's right to maintain the suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Wakf Board Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in O.S.No.220 of 2008 and consequently allow the aforesaid O.S.No.220 of 2008.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the judgment and decree of the Wakf Board Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge at Vellore in O.S. No.220 of 2008 dated 17.02.2016.

S.No.

Sub Headings

Paragraph Nos.

1.

Plaint

4 to 9

2.

Written Statement filed by the eighth

Defendant

10 to 11

3.

Written statement filed by the 9th

Defendant

12

4.

Gist of the written statement filed by the

20th defendant

13

5.

Judgment of the Trial Court

14 to 17

6.

Submissions

21 to 28

7.

Scope of Revision under Section 83(9) of

the Waqf Act, 1995

29 to 33

8.

Scheme of Waqf Act

34 to 49

9.

Whether notice is necessary under Section

89 of the Waqf Act, 1995

50 to 56

10.

Whether the documents dated 16.10.1946

and 07.07.1931 have a bearing on the title

of the suit property

57 to 63

11.

Whether a suit can only be filed by the

Wakf Board

64 to 74

12.

Whether the plaintiff Ahale Sunnathwal

Jamath Jogi Madam Masjid and Durga

Gudiyattam is different from Jogi Madam

Masjid and Durga

75 to 80

13.

Lack of pleadings

81 to 90

14.

Previous litigations with respect to the

suit schedule property

91

15.

Filing of O.S.No.1355 of 1969 and

O.S.No.362 of 1970

92 to 98

16.

Is misdescription of parties fatal?

99 to 104

17.

Source of title of the eighth defendant

105 to 123

18.

Oral Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and its

Effect

124 to 127

19.

Does the non-payment of contribution to

the Wakf Board efface the Wakf and its

properties?

128 to 131

20.

Whether the sale of the suit property is

Valid

132

21.

Whether the suit is barred by time

133 to 137

21.

Is Order 9 Rule 9 CPC a bar to the

present suit?

138 to 143

22.

Conclusion

144 to 146

2. O.S.No.220 of 2008 was filed by one Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam Masjid and Durga (hereinafter referred to as 'Jogi Madam Masjid) for the following reliefs:

“a) Declare that the suit property is the Wakf property of the Plaintiff's Mosque and Durga under the control and management of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the 8thDefendant, his men, agents, servants and unlawful followers from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property,

b) Declare that the registered sale deed dt. 09.06.2008, Doc.No.4497/2008, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gudiyattam, executed by the Defendants 1 to 6 through their Power Agent 7th Defendant in favour of the 8thDefendant is illegal, null and void and ab-initio.

c) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the 11thDefendant from effecting name transfer in the revenue records in respect of the suit property.

d) Grant an order of permanent injunction, restraining the 12thDefendant from effecting name transfer in the municipal records in respect of the suit property.

e) Grant an order of permanent injunction against the 13thand 14thDefendants restraining them from in any manner providing illegal protection to the 8thDefendant to take illegal and forcible possession of the suit property from the Plaintiff's Mosque and Durga.

f) Grant an order of permanent injunction against 8thDefendant, his men, agents and servants restraining them from alienating the suit property to any third parties and

g) award the cost of the suit to the Plaintiff.”

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their ranks in the suit.

Plaint:

4. The claim of the plaintiff was that the suit property is a Wakf property, which had been endowed in favour of the plaintiff Mosque and Durga. The purpose of the grant was for construction of a Makkan, for keeping the lights in the Mosque and Durga and for offering prayers in the Mosque and rendering connected services. According to the plaintiff, the property has be