JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiffs Second Appeal in a suit for the defendant's ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of a house situate in the city of Allahabad. The plaintiffs claim for the defendant's ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 777/9/6, which included Rs. 735/- on account of arrears of rent up to the 31st Oct. 1954 Rs. 9/6 on account of expenses on notice, and Rs. 42 as damages for use and occupation for Nov. and Dec. 1954, upto the date of suit; and pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 21/- per month, along with interest at three per cent per annum, was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment, dated the 25th Nov. 1955. On appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court, by its judgment, dated the 8th Aug. 1956, held that the Committee of Management, which had sued on behalf of the Waqf, was not validly-appointed its Mutawalli by the U. P. Sunni Cenlral Board of Waqfs, inasmuch as, when the appointment was made on the 28th Feb. 1948, the operation of the decree in Suit No. 4 of 1944, in pursuance of which the appointment had been made, stood stayed by this Court's order, dated the 3rd Feb. suit on the ground that the Committee of Management, which had brought the suit, had no right to sue. There was a Second Appeal from the said judgment, dated the 8th Aug., 1956, of the lower appellate Court, being Second Appeal No. 1819 of 1956. It was allowed by this Court's judgment dated the 12th Sep. 1967. The judgment of the lower appellate Court was set aside, and the case was sent back to it for a fresh decision, after taking into consideration an order of the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, dated 17th May, 1954. On remand, as aforesaid, two questions were raised before the lower appellate Court as the questions, which arose for its consideration in the appeal. The first question was whether the rate of rent was Rs. 8/- per month, and was enhanced to Rs. 12/- as claimed by the defendant, or that it was Rs. 14/-which was enhanced to Rs. On remand, as aforesaid, two questions were raised before the lower appellate Court as the questions, which arose for its consideration in the appeal. The first question was whether the rate of rent was Rs. 8/- per month, and was enhanced to Rs. 12/- as claimed by the defendant, or that it was Rs. 14/-which was enhanced to Rs. 21/- per month, as claimed by the plaintiff; and the second question was whether the Committee of Management could be said to be a validly appointed Mutawalli under the order, dated 17th May, 1954 of the President, U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf. The lower appellate Court held against the plaintiff on both these points, and allowing the appeal, dismissed the suit. 2. It was contended before me that the finding of the lower appellate Court on both the points is erroneous in law. 3. It is unfortunate that the entire lower Court record of this case is reported to have been destroyed in the fire which engulfed the District Court Record Room at Allahabad in 1978. A paper-book containing the pleadings, the issues, the statements of two witnesses, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, and certain documents was filed by Mr. Sirish Prasad, Advocate, for the defendant-respondent. The record of the Second Appeal No. 1819 of 1956, which contains the lower appellate Court first judgment, dated the 8th Aug. 1956, and of this Court, dated the 12th Sept. 1967, was also sent for by me. From the certified copy of the decree of the lower appellate Court, which was filed along with the memorandum of the Second Appeal, it appears that the plaintiff had described itself as "Waqf Committee, Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, Allahabad, through Ch. Mohd. Hamid, its secretary, r/o Dondipur, Allahabad." The plaintiffs description in the copy of the plaint included in the paper book that was passed on to me by Mr. Sirish Prasad, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, is; "Waqf Committee Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, Allahabad, Bazaye Ch. Mohd. Hamid Sahib, Secretary, Waqf Sheikh Abdullah." The description of the plaintiff appellant in the memorandum of Second Appeal is: "The Managing Committee, Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, Allahabad, through its acting Secretary, 46, Minhajpur, Allahabad," It transpired that the Acting Secretary of the Waqf, who had filed the Second appeal in this Court, was and continues to be Mr. Inamul Haque, an advocate of this Court. Inamul Haque, an advocate of this Court. When this discrepancy was discovered during the hearing of the Second Appeal in this Court, an application was filed praying for amendment of the description of the plaintiff appellant in the memorandum of Second Appeal as: "Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, Allahabad, through Inamul Haque, Acting Secretary, Managing Committee of Minhajpur, Allahabad." The application also prays for amendment of the description of the plaintiff in the plaint so as to read: "Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, Allahaad, through Ch. Mohd. Hamid Sahib, Secretary Management Committee, r/o 197, Dondipur, Allahabad." 4. The prayer for amendment of the plaintiffs description in the plaint was actuated by the desire to overcome the objection, which was put across by me that the Committee of Management was not a juristic person and could not therefore sue in its name. From the statements made in, and the papers filed along with the affidavit and the supplementary affidavit filed with the application and the counter-affidavit filed in opposition thereto, it transpired that, by an order; dated 14th May, 1954, the President of the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow, appointed a reconstituted Committee for the managment of the waqf Sheikh Abdullah, Allahabad, which consisted of (1) Zulfiqar Ullah Sahib, (2) Abdul Rauf Sahib, (3) Inamul Haque Sahib Vakil, (4) Abdul Ghaffar Khan, (5) Ch. Mohd. Hamid Sahib, (6) Muslahuddin s/o Mohi Uddin with a seventh member who members. On 12th Dec. 1954, by its Resolution No. 18 (32), dated the 12th Dec. 1954, the President, U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow, approved the appointment of Zulfiqar Ullah as President, Ch. Mohd. Hamid as Secretary and Sri Abdual Rauf, Sri Abdual Ghafar Khan, Sri Inamul Haque, Sri Muslahuddin and Sri Mohd. Amin, as members of the Managing Committee of the Waqf Nos. 107 and 108, Allahabad, which appear to have been the File Numbers of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah as per copy of the President's order, dated 14th May, 1954. It further appears that, by an earlier letter, dated the 20th Jan. 1954, the Secretary of the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs had approved a resolution, dated the 25th March, 1951, of the Managing Committee of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah appointed in 1948 empowering its Secretary and joint Secretary to sign plaint and written statement on its behalf. From a letter, dated the 20th Oct. 1954, the Secretary of the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs had approved a resolution, dated the 25th March, 1951, of the Managing Committee of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah appointed in 1948 empowering its Secretary and joint Secretary to sign plaint and written statement on its behalf. From a letter, dated the 20th Oct. 1961, addressed by Mohammad Zulfiqar Ullah, President of the Committee of Management of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah to the Secretary U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow, it appears that in view of the serious illness of Ch. Mohd Hamid Secretary of the Committee, Sri Inamul Haque, Advocate, was appointed the Acting Secretary and authorised to sign pleadings, application, petitions and Vakalatnama on behalf of the committee as also to withdraw rehabilitation grant and annuity under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, at a meeting of the Managing Committee held on 15th Oct. 1961. The Secretary, U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, by letter , dated 5th Oct. 1962, in continuation of an earlier letter, dated 30th Oct., 1961, authorised Mr. Inamul Haque, Advocate, Acting Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah Nos. 107, 108,' Allahabad, to sign pleadings, applications, vakalatnama and draw annuity and interest on it on behalf of the Managing Committee as constituted and appointed by the Board. Annexure 2' to the counter-affidavit however, purports to be a notice, dated 21st Dec.; 1970 given by Sri Muslahuddin as Mutawalli of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah to the defendant demanding Rs. 432/- as rent for the preceding three years, and annexure 4' there to is a receipt, dated 10th Jan. 1971, which purports to be signed by the said Muslahuddin. 5. The material shows that, although to begin with the Committee appointed under the order dated 14th May, 1954, consisted of six members with power to co-opt a seventh member, but the co-option of the 7th member, Sri Mohd. Amin and the entire Committee of seven, as constituted after the co-option, was approved by the President of the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs vide Resolution No. 18 (32), dated 12th Dec., 1954. Mr. Amin and the entire Committee of seven, as constituted after the co-option, was approved by the President of the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs vide Resolution No. 18 (32), dated 12th Dec., 1954. Mr. Inamul Haque, Advocate, who was a member of the Committee of Management of the Waqf so appointed on the 14th May, 1954, was appointed as Acting Secretary at the Committee's meeting on 15th Oct., 1961 with power to sign pleadings, applications, petitions and vakalatnamas on behalf of the Committee, and that Resolution was approved by the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, vide its letter, dated the 5th Oct. 1962. The Second appeal in this Court was filed in the year 1971 long after Mr. Inamul Haque, the Acting Secretary, had been authorised to sign pleadings, petitions and vakalatnamas on behalf of the Committee of Management of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, and the constitution of the Committee had been approved, vide Resolution, dated 12th Dec. 1954. The resolution, dated 12th Dec., 1954, does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the lower appellate Court, and it has found that the right to co-opt the 7th member, which was given to the six members of the Committee appointed by the Waqfs Board, was illegal; because the power of co-option was given only in Sections 7 and 8, which deal with the constitution of the Sunni Central Board and the Shia Central Board under the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, and could not be given to members of a committee of Management appointed by the Sunni Central Board inasmuch it amounted to a relegation of power. 6. The reason, which thus appealed to the lower appellate Court for again holding that the constitution of the Committee of Management of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah was invalid is, in my opinion, untenable. But, before I proceed to discuss that further, as a point arising in the appeal, it appears necessary to dispose of the application, that was made as aforesaid, for amendment of the plaint and memorandum of the appeal. So far as the plaint is concerned, there could be no question of making any amendment in the plaint of the kind prayed for, now at this stage, more so because the original record has been destroyed. So far as the plaint is concerned, there could be no question of making any amendment in the plaint of the kind prayed for, now at this stage, more so because the original record has been destroyed. Suffice it to say that no objection was raised by the defendant-respondent to the form; in which the plaintiff was described. It is undisputed that in reality the plaintiff is the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah. The Mutawalli is only the human ministrant through whom God acts for purposes of preserving, protecting and applying waqf property for the charitable and religious purposes, for which a waqf of it is made. The identity of the plaintiff is clear from the description. The Waqf. Committee, Waqf Sheikh Abdullah or the Managing Committee Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, all point to the Committee of Management appointed by the U. P. Sunni Central Eoard of Waqfs as the Mutawalli of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah under S. 56 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936. But for the authorisation of the Secretary, Ch. Modh. Hamid to sign pleadings etc., on behalf of the Committee, that is, on behalf of the Mutawalli of the Waqf, the entire body of members of the Committee would have joined as plaintiffs as the body of mutawallis. But a Mutawalli is not a trustee in the strict sense of the law of trust, as the ownership of the waqf property does not vest in him. The ownership vests in God, and a Mutawalli is a mere Manager of the property. The Mutawalli is not the plaintiff. The real plaintiff is the Waqf. Under the circumstances, it was, in my opinion, not necessary in law for the entire body of Mutawallis to join as plaintiff. There is the further fact that the Committee of Management was appointed as Mutawalli in this case by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs in exercise of its statutory powers under S. 56 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, read with the definition of a Mutawalli contained in S. 3 (3) there of. The power of the Waqf Board to appoint a Mutawalli under S. 56 is not hedged in by any condition or restrictions. The power of the Waqf Board to appoint a Mutawalli under S. 56 is not hedged in by any condition or restrictions. I am, therefore, of the opinion that apart from authorising the six members of the Committee originally appointed in May, 1954, to co-opt a 7th Member, the Waqf Board could, as well authorise the Committee through its Secretary or Acting Secretary in specified matters like signing pleadings, applications, petitions and vakalatnamas etc. That being so, the action of Ch. Mohd. Hamid in signing the plaint on behalf of the Committee of Management, which was the Mutawalli of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, was right and proper. Similarly, the act of Mr. Inamul Haque, Advocate, in filing the Second Appeal and authorising an Advocate by a vakalatnama singed by him on behalf of the Committee of Management, which was the Mutawalli of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, was also right and proper. The error of description is not doubt there, but there being no doubt about the identity of the appellant, I allow the application in so far as the description of the appellant in this Court is concerned. Let the description of the appellant be amended on the memorandum of second appeal in this court. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is not necessary for me to restate the reasons for my view that the Waqf Board could have validly appointed a Committee of seven members as Mutawalli of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, by naming only six of them and leaving it to those six to co-opt the 7th member. This follows from the fact that the powers of the Waqf Board under S. 56 of the U. P Muslim Waqf Act, 1936, are not hedged in by any conditions or restrictions. The power of co-option is quite an usual power, which Committees generally possess and exercise. There was no question of any re-delegation of its powers by the Waqf Board. The Waqf Board had appointed a Committee of seven, nominated six out of seven, and authorised those six to co-opt the seventh member of the Committee. At any rate, the Committee of seven, after the cooption of the 7th member, was approved by name by the Waqf Board's Resolution, dated 12th Dec. 1954. The suit was instituted after that. The authority of Ch. Mohd. Hamid to sign the plaint etc. At any rate, the Committee of seven, after the cooption of the 7th member, was approved by name by the Waqf Board's Resolution, dated 12th Dec. 1954. The suit was instituted after that. The authority of Ch. Mohd. Hamid to sign the plaint etc. on behalf of the Committee was properly upheld by the trial Court in view of the approval given by the Waqf Board by its letter, dated 20th Jan., 1954. This approval was given after the dismissal of the First Appeal No. 78 of 1948 on 7th Jan., 1953 and the automatic discharge of the stay order, dated 3rd Feb. 1948, which was passed therein. The suit was in my opinion properly instituted and prosecuted by the Committee as the Mutawalli of the Waqf Sheikh Abdullah, through its Secretary and. Slater on, through the Acting Secretary Mr. Inamul Haque. 8. The next question, which, therefore, arises, is about the rate of rent. It appears that, prior to the suit giving rise to this second appeal,- a suit had been instituted against the defendant in the Court of the Judge. Small Causes for recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 21/- per month for the period 1-12-1950 to 31st March 1951, and it was decreed prior to that suit, the rent had been enhanced from Rs. 14/'- to Rs. 21/- by a notice served in Dec. 1949. Before the filing of the present suit, a notice dated 17th Sept. 1954. was served on the defendant demanding payment of the rent in arrears at the rate of Rs. 21/- per month. The defendant admitted receipt of the notice of enhancement of rent. He also admitted receipt of the demand notice. The plaintiff also filed copy of the Municipal assessment roll, and the trial Court held, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence and the. statement of Rafi Ulla, who was the plaintiffs pairokar that the rate of rent was Rs. 21/- per month. The rent found to be due from 1-12-1951. The lower appellate Court, however, held that there is no legal evidence, either oral or documentary, to prove that the rate of rent was Rs. 21/- per month. According to the lower appellate Court, the judgment of the Court of Judge, Small Causes, decreeing the rent 'at the rate of Rs. 14/- per month against the defendant, a copy of which is Ex. 21/- per month. According to the lower appellate Court, the judgment of the Court of Judge, Small Causes, decreeing the rent 'at the rate of Rs. 14/- per month against the defendant, a copy of which is Ex. 4 on the record' is not binding in view of the ruling of a Full Bench of this Court in Manural Haq v. Hakim Mohsin Ali, 1970 All LJ 670 : ( AIR 1970 All 604 ) (FB). The trial Court, judgment shows that rent was enhanced from Rs. 14/- per month to Rs. 21/- per month by notice in Dec. 1949, vide Ext. 9, and that the suit for arrears of rent for the period 1-12-1950 to 31-3-1951 was decreed by the Court of Judge, Small Causes, at the rate of Rs. 21/- per month vide Ext. 4. Unfortunately, the file having been destroyed. I am not in a position to verify as to which of these two statements is correct. In anv case, it does show that the defendant's case that the rent was Rs. 8/- per month, and, on an enhancement, it could have become Rs. 12/- per month, is inconsistent even with the fact-that the suit for arrears- of rent was decreed at Rs. 14/-per month vide Ext. 4. as recited in the lower appellate Court's judgment under appeal. The statement of the witness, Rafi Ullah, was treated to be no evidence by the lower Appellate Court on the ground that he could have had no personal knowledge about the rate of rent; inasmuch as he was employed by the Waqf Committee some time in 1954. He produced a list of tenants, but the lower appellate Court observed that no account has been filed by the plaintiff to show that the rent of Rs. 14/- per month was credited as received from the defendant. 9. The Full Bench of this Court in Manzul Haq v. Hakim Mohisn Ali, 1970 All LJ 670 (supra) : ( AIR 1970 All 604 ) held that the judgment of the Court of Judge, Small Causes does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for rent for a subsequent period, or for rent and ejectment, in the Munsif's Court. The reason given by the Full Bench was that the Court of Judge. The reason given by the Full Bench was that the Court of Judge. Small Causes is not a Court of 'exclusive jurisdiction, but a Court of a preferential jurisdiction, and since the Small Causes Court is not competent to try the subsequent suit by reason of the increased valuation or by reason of combination of relief of ejectment, which was, at that time, not triable by the Court of Judge, Small Causes the judgment of the Court of Judge, Small Causes cannot operate as res judicata. That, however, is not the question in the present case. It has not been urged that the judgment of the Small Causes Court operated as res judicata, and consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the rate of rent. The judgment of the Court of Small Causes was one of the several pieces of evidence. The other pieces of evidence were the copy of the Municipal assessment roll and the notice of enhancement of rent. The oral statement of the witness produced by the plaintiff could not also be r led out on the ground.that he had-no personal knowledge as he came in the year 1954. He made his statement on the basis of the documents produced in the case, and on the basis of the Municipal assessment of 1942, which is referred to in his statement and was produced. He proved that the rate of rent of Rs. 14/- was too low and was, therefore, enhanced by notice to Rs. 21/- per month. He also referred to a decree of the Small Cause Court for deposing that the rate of rent was Rs. 21/- per month, and, of course, the notice of enhancement. He was cross-examined and stated that he was paid employee of the Waqf Committee since 20th Aug., 1954, but added that he had worked honorary for the Waqf Committee even before the 20th Aug. 1954. To say that there was no legal evidence in proof of the rate of rent is, in my opinion, not a correct view of the aforesaid material. The defendant's statement was, on the other hand, nothing more than that he was a tenant since the time of Mohi Uddin and he paid Rs. 8/- per month as rent to him. To say that there was no legal evidence in proof of the rate of rent is, in my opinion, not a correct view of the aforesaid material. The defendant's statement was, on the other hand, nothing more than that he was a tenant since the time of Mohi Uddin and he paid Rs. 8/- per month as rent to him. He admitted receipt of the notice of enhancement of rent and also of the notice of demand, but did not lead any evidence to rebut the plaintiffs evidence on the point. I am satisfied that the rate of rent was Rs. 21/-per month, and the amount of rent and damages determined and decreed by the trial Court was due and payable by the defendant. The defendant committed default in payment of rent and was also liable to be evicted. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside. The decree of the trial Court is restored with costs throughout.