JUDGMENT

The Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.526 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai and in A.S.No.167 of 2004 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sub Court, Madurai, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2.The respondent herein as plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.526 of 1995 on the file of the trial Court against the appellants/defendants for the relief of recovery of possession, permanent injunction and to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property from June 1995 till date of possession.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

4.According to the plaintiff, it is a Muslim Public Religious and Charitable Trust. Many persons have endowed the properties to the Trust. The properties belonging to the plaintiff including the suit scheduled property bearing Survey No.90/1 has been surveyed by the Commissioner of Wakfs as per Section 4(3) of the Wakf Act. The Government of Tamil Nadu has forwarded the said survey report to the State of Wakf Board and the Board published the Plaintiff's Trust in Official Gazette, dated 27.05.1969 in serial No.98 and 115 of the Gazette. As per Section 6 of the Wakf Act, the character and nature of Wakf has become final and conclusive. The plaintiff's Trust is functioning under the General Supervision of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The Trust is also paying contribution to the Wakf Board, as per Wakf Act. The plaintiff-Trust has created for the purpose of commorating the memory of Saint Mohaideen Abdul Khader Jolani for performing certain functions on the eleventh day of every month, performing Santhanakoodu every year free feeding to poor on the Ramjan days, conducting Moulooth and Kandoories in the month of Rabiyi Avval in the name of Prophet Mohammad and in the month of Rabiyul Akeer in the name of Saint Mohideen Abdul Khader Jilani and running Arabic School and other functions mentioned under the byelaws of the Trust. While so, the first defendant has taken the Door No.84 from the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and Door No.84A on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- as per English Calender month. For the rents paid by the first defendant printed receipts have been issued to the first defendant. The first defendant is occupying the suit property as a tenant under the plaintiff. At the time of vacating the suit property, the first defendant has to surrender whatever improvements made to the suit property to the plaintiff's Trust after removing the super structure. The first defendant has paid the rent till February 1995 to the plaintiff and obtained the receipts on 11.03.1995. The first defendant has not paid the rent beginning from March 1995 till date. She has also vacated the suit property and has not surrendered the suit property to the plaintiff. In law, the first defendant is to handover vacant possession to the plaintiff when the first defendant has illegally and unauthorisedly and even without the written consent of the plaintiff-Trust transferred and handed over the possession of the suit property to the second defendant. The occupation of the second defendant in the suit property is neither legal nor proper. Also, it is not binding on the plaintiff. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The second defendant never obtained any written permission from the plaintiff to take any lease hold right over the suit property. By the conduct of the first defendant in allowing the second defendant to occupy illegally and unauthorisedly the suit property, the Plaintiff's Trust has been put to irreparable loss. The second defendant has no right in law to put up the construction in the property of the plaintiff. The Office bearers of the plaintiff went to the spot and prevented the second defendant in anyway putting up construction. The plaintiff informed the Madurai Municipal Corporation, on 17.06.1995 that the Second Appellant/Second Defendant