ORDER

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.

No.220 of 2008 dated 17.02.2016.

12. Whether the plaintiff Ahale Sunnathwal 75 to 80

Jamath Jogi Madam Masjid and Durga Gudiyattam is different from Jogi Madam

Masjid and Durga

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 8th Defendant, 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

8th Defendant is illegal, null and void and ab-initio, c) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the 11th Defendant from effecting name transfer in the revenue records in respect of the suit property, d) Grant an order of permanent injunction, restraining the 12th Defendant from effecting name transfer in the municipal records in respect of the suit property, e) Grant an order of permanent injunction against the 13th and 14th Defendants restraining them from in any manner providing illegal protection to the 8th Defendant 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

8th Defendant, 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 been managed by the ancestors of Haji Katheef Syed Hussain Sahib. The said Haji Katheef Syed Hussain Sahib was managing the properties. In and about 07.07.1931, by virtue of an agreement between Syed Abbas Hussain Sahib and five others, they started managing the same. The right to manage the property was divided amongst themselves in and about 1938.

5. Haji Katheef Syed Hussain Sahib retired from the office and appointed his six sons, namely, 1) Syed Abbas Hussain Sahib, 2) Syed Javvad Hussain Sahib, 3) Syed Nazeer Hussain Sahib,

4) Syed Zahid Hussain Sahib,

5) Syed Siddique Hussain Sahib and

6) Syed Ahamed Hussain Sahib to take over the Management. Haji Katheef Syed Hussain Sahib executed a deed dated 16.10.1946 in favour of his sons, calling upon them to maintain and manage the suit properties. The sons were maintaining and managing the properties and were serving the Mosque and Durga.

6. In 1959, the then Government of Madras surveyed the properties and after a receipt of report from the then Madras State Wakf Board, notified the same. The notification was published by the Government of Madras on 11.02.1959. The suit property was amongst the list of properties denoting that they belong to the plaintiff Mosque and Durga. The said notification was not challenged and it has become final and conclusive.

7. The properties being the properties of the Mosque and Durga, it was under the control and supervision of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the

9th defendant.

8. By orders of the Wakf Board dated 21.03.2006 and 13.10.2008,

S.A.Rahim and ten others were appointed a