JUDGMENT : Richards, Banerji, JJ. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment from certain shops and also for mesne profits. It is not necessary to state the facts in any detail. The plaintiff's claim was that the shops in question were the subject of a waqf created by one Qazi Amin-ud-din; that in the year 1905 a suit was instituted by certain Muhammadans of Kairana, where the shops are situate, under section 539 of Act No. XIV of 1882; that as the result of that suit, the plaintiffs were appointed trustees, and it was ascertained that the waqf in fact existed and that the shops in question were part of the waqf property. The defendant appellant was a party to the proceedings under section 539 and the plaintiffs contended that they were now entitled to recover possession of the shops from her together with mesne profits. The defendant pleaded that there was no waqf and that she was the representative of a transferee for value and was therefore entitled to remain in possession. The main issue in the case accordingly was, whether or not the defendant could go behind the proceedings under section 539 and re-open the case. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendant could not go behind these proceedings and overruled this defence. There was another claim put forward by the defendant, namely, that certain improvements had been made in the shops and that she was entitled to compensation for such improvements as a condition of possession being taken from her. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled this claim also, with the result that the plaintiffs' claim for possession and mesne profits for three years in respect of nine shops was decreed; as regards the rest of the claim it was dismissed. The defendant alone has appealed, and it is argued on her behalf that the proceedings under section 539 cannot operate as res judicata. It is said that the present plaintiffs were no parties to that suit, and that the present plaintiffs cannot be said to claim “under the plaintiffs” in the previous suit. The defendant alone has appealed, and it is argued on her behalf that the proceedings under section 539 cannot operate as res judicata. It is said that the present plaintiffs were no parties to that suit, and that the present plaintiffs cannot be said to claim “under the plaintiffs” in the previous suit. It was further argued that section 539 only applies to a case in which the existence of the trust is not denied; that in the suit brought in 1905 the present defendant denied the existence of the trust, and that therefore the declaration that the shops in question were waqf property as against the present appellant was ultra vires, and that accordingly she is not bound by the decision. In the case of Ghazaffar Husain Khan v. Tawar Husain,(1906) I.L.R., 28 All., 112 a suit was instituted under section 539. Amongst other parties to that suit were certain alienees of the property alleged to be waqf. These alienees (just as in the suit of 1905) pleaded that there was no waqf and that they ought not to have been impleaded in the suit. It was held by the court that the alienees were proper parties and that the court was entitled, as against them, to ascertain what the trust property consisted of. STANLEY, C.J., had some doubt as to whether or not the trustees appointed in the suit would be obliged to bring a separate suit for possession in the event of the defendants who were in actual possession not surrendering it up. This we take to be the meaning of the following passage in the judgment of STANLEY, C.J., at page 116:— “I see no good reason for holding that under that section the Court cannot, as it did in this case, determine of what the trust properties consisted or find that particular alienations of it could not be maintained, provided all proper parties are present before it. If transferees or mortgagees who have been impleaded in a suit instituted under section 539, do not accept the findings of the court in that suit, it may be necessary for the trustees appointed by the court to manage the trust property, to institute a suit for recovery of possession. If transferees or mortgagees who have been impleaded in a suit instituted under section 539, do not accept the findings of the court in that suit, it may be necessary for the trustees appointed by the court to manage the trust property, to institute a suit for recovery of possession. As to this I express no opinion.” This case is a direct authority that persons who dispute the existence of the trust can be made parties to a suit under section 539, and of course it necessarily follows that they will be bound by the decision arrived at in the suit. The words in section 13 “parties under whom they claim” are very wide. It is, however, unnecessary for us to decide whether or not the present plaintiffs can be said to claim under the plaintiffs in the suit of 1905. The question between the defendant appellant and the plaintiffs as to the property being waqf could be and was decided once and for all in the proceedings instituted in 1905, and the present suit is merely carrying into effect the decree that was pronounced against the defendant appellant in that suit. In our opinion the learned Subordinate Judge was correct in holding that it is not open in this suit for the defendant appellant to re-open the question as to whether or not the shops in question were waqf property, though not necessarily on the ground of res judicata. As to the question of compensation, even if we assume that improvements were made by the husband of the appellant for which they had not been amply compensated by the user, we are not satisfied that such improvements were made in the bona fide belief that he was absolutely entitled to the shops. There is a large amount of documentary evidence which goes to show that the defendant's husband had at least notice that the property was alleged to be waqf property.