The Tribunal has the power to determine disputes relating to Wakf property, including whether a particular property is Wakf property or not, and whether a Wakf is a Shia Wakf or a Sunni Wakf. The Tribunal's decision is final and binding on the parties, and has the force of a decree made by a Civil Court. No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question, or other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property which is required by, or under the Act, to be determined by a Tribunal.

( 1 ) THIS order shall govern disposal of C. R. No. 847/95 (Ramjan Shah and others v. M. P. Wakf Board and others), C. R. No. 893/95 (Siraj and another v. Chandmal) C. R. No. 894/95 (Siraj and others v. Suresh Chandra) and C. R. No. 910/95 (Hussain Shah v. M. P. Wakf Board) as in all these revision petitions common question of law falls for determination.

( 2 ) C. R. No. 847/95 and C. R. No. 1010/95. In C. R. No. 847/95, plaintiff-petitioners impugn the order dated 26-7-95 passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Indore, passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 15/93 whereby he directed for transfer of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case to the Tribunal. In C. R. No. 1010/95 plaintiffs-petitioners impugn the order dated 2-8-1995 passed by the Fourth Civil Judge Class I, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 15-A/93 whereby the aforesaid suit has been transferred to the Tribunal, as constituted under the Wakf Act, 1954. Both the orders arise from the same suit. Facts giving rise to both the petitions are that the plaintiff filed the suit praying relief inter alia for declaration that 'majar Hajrat Naharsa Wali' at village Khajrana is not a Wakf property and consequently orders dated 24-4-68 and 13-4-69 passed by the M. P. Wakf Board, Bhopal, is illegal and inoperative. According to plaintiffs, their ancestors were 'mutwalli' of the Majar. According to the plaintiffs dispute arose, as widow of Mehub Shah, defendant No. 3, tried to intervene in the management of the Majar, which according to the plaintiff was not permissible according to Muslim Law. Defendant No. 3, filed an application before the Tahsildar, Indore, in which the plaintiff filed objections and the same was dismissed by order dated 9-4-67. Thereafter, aforesaid Munnibai, defendant No. 3, filed an application before defendant No. 1, M. P. Wakf Board, making a request to take under its control the Majar. This was done without the consent of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 included the aforesaid property in the Register at Serial No. 25 on 18-3-68. When plaintiffs came to know about the same they filed an objection on 5-4-1968. After several reminders, defendant No. 1 ultimately by its communication dated 24-4-1968 held that inclusion of 'majar' in the register of Wakf Property is correct. Consequently, on the basis of the aforesaid basic pleading, plaintiffs sought the relief as stated above.

( 3 ) CIVIL Revision No. 893/95. Defendants-petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 25-5-95 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Thandla, District Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 12-A/94 whereby prayer made by them to transfer the case to the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act has been declined. Further order dated 3-8-95 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhabua, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3/95, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendant against the grant of ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff has been dismissed. Short facts giving rise to the present revision-petition are that the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from dismantling the roof of the shop or cause any damage to it. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 1 Daodi Bohara Jamat Committee is the owner of the suit property, which is a shop adjacent to the Mosque. The plaintiff is the tenant and doing his business in the suit premises. The defendants demolished the rooms of the first floor and disconnected the plaintiff's electric connection. In the suit, prayer for ad interim injunction was also sought and the same was granted by the Civil Judge by its order dated 27-6-95 and affirmed by the Appellate Court by order dated 2-8-95. Defendants moved an application for transfer of the case to the Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 2-5-95 the same was rejected.

( 4 ) CIVIL Revision No. 894/95 :defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 26-5-95 passed by Civil Judge Class II Thandla, District Jhabua, in Civil Su