ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1.The revision petitioner, now by legal representatives, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2022 before the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal. The plaintiff, being unsuccessful before the Waqf Board, preferred an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal. The same was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 11.10.2022, as against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2.I have heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Mrs.A.Ajimath Begum, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Mr.Zaffarullah Khan, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

3.Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the subject property is a private family Trust, belonging to the plaintiff’s family and at no point of time, there was any dedication of the subject properties for any public waqf or public objects/charities. The Trust created a private family waqf, which is for the benefit of the family members only and without any jurisdiction, the Waqf Board notified the property as a public waqf and directing registration of the waqf under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

4.My attention is invited to the writ petition filed by the plaintiff in W.P.No.262 of 2010 seeking to quash the notification dated 03.11.2009 and yet another writ petition filed by Siruvadi Mosque Waqf, represented by its Mutawalli, the 2^nd defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff in W.P.No.16916 of 2011. The writ petition filed by the 2^nd respondent was allowed and the writ petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff to approach the 3^rd respondent therein for appropriate relief. The respondent, by order dated 26.05.2008, however registered the plaintiff’s property as waqf property under the Waqf Act. The same was challenged by the plaintiff, under whom the present revision petitioners claim. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.01.2009, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the registration of the properties as waqf properties. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board was directed to hold proper enquiry, by affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, as to whether the properties are waqf properties or not, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

5.Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioners, inviting my attention to the said direction issued by this Court and the impugned order passed on 03.11.2009, would state that there is absolutely no discussion made and virtually, the Resolution dated 03.11.2009 as a non-speaking order. He would also draw my attention to Section 40 of the Act, which requires a speaking order and he would therefore state that there was absolutely no merit in the conclusions arrived at, on the basis of no evidence. He would further state that unfortunately, the Tribunal, without considering any of the material aspects, has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the entire issue revolved around a partition deed, which was marked as Ex.A1 dated 14.02.1910 and taking me through the relevant clause pertaining to ‘D’ schedule, which is the subject matter of the dispute and the clause as extracted by the Waqf Tribunal would contend that the Tribunal has omitted the word “ek;Kila” which made a world of difference and had a direct bearing on the character of the waqf. He would also invite my attention to Ex.A2, which is the another partition deed dated 10.12.1951, where also the factum of there being no dedication to any public Waqf has been reiterated.

7.It is therefore the contention of Mr.Balan Haridas that the Tribunal, on a misreading of the document, has come to a wrong conclusion that the subject property is a public waqf. He also relies on the decision of the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Radhakanta Deb and another Vs. C