JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - This is plaintiffs' appeal. 2. The dispute is with respect to House No. 825. According to the case of the plaintiff, this house is comprised in Waqf property known as Masjid Takiya Wazir Shah, Agra. It is registered also with the U.P. Central Sunni Board of Waqfs. On June 29, 1954, Riyaz Uddin, one of the Mutawallis made a registered deed of sale in favour of Mohammad Hussain. Babu Khan was tenant in this house. The suit was brought seeking the relief of cancellation of the above mentioned deed of sale on the ground that this was unauthorised and also for possession and eviction of Babu Khan on the basis that he had denied the title of the landlord, namely, the waqf. Riyaz Uddin, Mohammad Hussain and Babu Khan are dead. Their legal representatives have been placed on the record. In defence it was contended that the property belonged to Riyaz Uddin personally and, therefore, he could legally make the sale as he did in favour of Mohammad Husain. 3. The trial Court took the view that the house, in dispute is part of the waqf property and this did not belong to Riyaz Uddin personally. The sale was, therefore, held to be incompetent and it was held also that Babu Khan, the tenant, had denied the title of landlord. The suit was decreed on these finding on September 16, 1970. The lower appellate court agreed with the trial court in its finding that there exists a waqf, as mentioned above. It found, however, that the house in dispute is not comprised in that waqf and on this basis it was held that the sale made by Riyaz Uddin was valid. The suit was, therefore, dismissed and the appeal allowed on May 23, 1972. Aggrieved, the plaintiff brought this Second Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of subsection (1) of Section 66 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, it was incumbent upon the court to have issued notice to the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs of this case. The argument advanced is that the suit relates to title to the waqf property. It is submitted for the respondents that there was a denial from their side that the property is comprised in the waqf and that the lower appellate court has recorded findings in Their favour on this point. The argument advanced is that the suit relates to title to the waqf property. It is submitted for the respondents that there was a denial from their side that the property is comprised in the waqf and that the lower appellate court has recorded findings in Their favour on this point. That in my opinion does not take out the case from the purview of Section 66 (1) aforesaid. In order to attract Section 66 (1) it is not required that it be admitted by the parties to suit that the property involved is comprised in the waqf. On the other hand, the provision is attracted whenever the title to a property alleged to be comprised in waqf is in issue. The plaintiff came up with a specific case that the property is comprised in waqf. The Waqf Board may be interested in maintaining also that the property is part and parcel of the waqf. It is in order that dispute in relation to such a property is completely and effectively adjudicated that the provision contemplates a notice to issue also to the Board where the waqf in question is registered. In the instant case it is true that this provision was not in force when the suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted, but since the provision is procedural in character, it will have its application also to pending proceedings and further it may be noted that the duty cast under this provision is upon a plea being raised to that effect by any of the parties to the dispute. Therefore, even though the appellant has not raised a specific ground in the appeal to the effect that such a notice ought to issue, the appellant is not debarred from raising the point in the course of arguments. Sub-section (3) of Section 66 also envisages that decree passed in such a matter may be rendered void at the instance of the Board where the court has proceeded without issuing notice to it. In order, therefore, that such an eventuality may not arise, it is appropriate that the Board is given due notice in the matter. Sub-section (3) of Section 66 also envisages that decree passed in such a matter may be rendered void at the instance of the Board where the court has proceeded without issuing notice to it. In order, therefore, that such an eventuality may not arise, it is appropriate that the Board is given due notice in the matter. The same view was taken by a learned Single Judge in the unreported case of Zamir Uddin Qureshi v. Smt. Baseen Jehan and another, (S.A. No. 367 of 1966) dated 8-7-1970 followed in F. A. F. O. No. 288 of 1973 ; Abdul Rashid and others v. Abdul Kalam and others, dated 16-12-1976 with which I am in respectful agreement. 5. For the contesting respondents the learned counsel also submitted that Shamsher Khan died on December 21, 1982. The suit giving rise to the appeal it will be noticed, was instituted by the waqf Masjid Takiya Wazir Shah, Agra, which itself is a legal entity. It is true that Shamsher Khan was one of the Mutawallis through whom the suit was brought, but the fact remains that the plaintiff in the real sense is the waqf and not the person holding the office of the Mutawalli for the time being. The death of the Mutawalli cannot consequently have the affect to abate the appeal nor is a substitution of his legal representatives as such required in the matter. The person through whom the suit was brought was required to be indicated only for such purpose as the service of process etc. and on that account the validity or the maintenance of this appeal cannot be said to be adversely affected. 6. For the reasons given above, the decree passed by the appellate court dated 23-5-1972 and the judgment and decree or the trial court dated 16-9-1970 are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the case remanded to the trial court with a direction that it shall proceed afresh after giving notice to the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs as contemplated under Section 66 (1) of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960. Costs on parties throughout.