Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This appeal is by the defendant, arising out of Original Suit No. 342 of 1957, filed by the plaintiffs for demolition of construction standing on the Suit property and to restore possession thereof to the plaintiffs’, which got decreed on 28.2.1977.

2. Plaintiffs, who are 10 in number, claim to be the members of the committee of management of a trust, alleged to have been created on 22.1.1957, and registered on 23.1.1957, by defendant No. 4. It is alleged that the property in issue, had devolved upon the Qazies, pursuant to a Sanad issued by ruler of Bundelkhand namely Maharaja Chhatrapal Singh Judev on 14.7.1874 in favour of one Abdul Latif who was a Qazi. The Sanad is Exb. 6 and is marked as Paper No. 60-C. It records that Abdul Latif was made Qazi by virtue of said Sanad. It is claimed that the entire property, which now forms part of Mohalla Qazipura was orally gifted to Abdul Latif. The plaint allegations are that in such circumstances, the Qazies continued to remain in possession over the suit property and the entire Qazipura Mohalla and various houses, Masjid, Mazar etc. came to be constructed over it. As per the plaint, suit property specified by letters A,B,C,D measures 55ft X 50ft. and letters E,F,G,H measuring 15ft x 10ft had passed on to Qazies from generation to generation, pursuant to the original grant (Sanad) and the same was being used for religious purposes and had assumed shape of a waqf. According to the plaint, on 23.1.1957, a trust was created by defendant No. 4, in which the plaintiffs were made members of the committee of management, and authorised to manage the suit property. It was claimed that the defendants have no right or authority over the suit property but have unauthorisedly encroached upon it, and have raised construction of certain shops. Demolition of illegal construction and possession is thus claimed.

3. The defendant contested the suit, denying plaintiffs’ right over the property or their right to institute suit, and instead claimed right over the suit property on the basis of a lease/patta executed by the then Zamindar. It was stated that the defendants are in possession over the suit property since long and various shops belonging to them are in existence. It was also alleged that date of dispossession is not specified and the suit is otherwise barred by limitation.

4. Various oral and documentary evidence have been led by the parties in support of their respective case. The Trial Court, on the basis of respective pleadings put forth by the parties framed following 10 issues for consideration.

(I) Whether defendant No. 4 and others had any proprietory rights in the land in suit and were entitled to waqf it?

(ii) Whether any valid Waqf about the land in suit was created by the Waqf deed dated 22.1.1957?

(iii) Whether defendant No. 4 and others Waqifs have in possession within 12 years of the land in suit?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs’ suit is delayed and barred by acquiescence? If so, its effect?

(v) Whether the suit property has been under valued and Court fee paid is insufficient?

(vi) To what relief if any are the plaintiffs entitled?

(vii) Whether the plaintiffs or his predecessors in interest acquired title by adverse possession as alleged?

(viii) Whether the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest have acquired possessory title as alleged? If so, its effect?

(ix) Whether on the date of the suit, plaintiffs were in actual physical possession over the two pieces of the land in suit?

(x) Whether the defendants were the rank trespassers and were liable to be ejected from the pieces of land in suit”?

5. Issue Nos. 1,2,3,7 & 8 were relevant for the present purposes and were decided together by the trial Court as they were found to be inter-related. The Trial Court proceeded to crystalize the issue further observing that the plaintiffs have to prove that suit property belonged to the Qazies, and on the basis of original grant, they are owners i