JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Defendants 1 to 10 are the Appellants against an affirming judgment in a suit for damages. 2. It is alleged in the plaint that the Plaintiff is the owner of the property described in Schedule-A of the plaint and had raised mung crop. On 26-3-1976, while the Plaintiff?s labourers were carrying the said crop in bundles, the Defendants formed an unlawful assembly and being armed with lathis dishonestly removed the bundles of mung crop and also removed some mung crop from the field after uprooting and on account of such an illegal action, the Plaintiff suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 150/-. 3. The Defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and also took the stand that the suit was not maintainable for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 56 and 57 of the Wakf Act, as according to the Defendants, the suit property is wakf property. 4. The learned Munsif framed 9 issues and came to the conclusion that it was the Plaintiff who was in possession of the land and had raised the mung crop in question and the Defendants had no manner of right, title and interest over the said crop and they illegally took away the same causing loss to the Plaintiff. On these findings he decreed the suit. 5. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the contention of the Defendants-Appellants regarding nonmaintainability of the suit on account of non-compliance of Section 57 (1) of the Wakf Act and affirming the finding of the lower Court that Plaintiff had grown the crop and Defendants illegally cut and removed the same, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present second appeal. 6. Mr. Y. A. Rahim, the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants, raises the following contentions in assailing the judgments of the two Courts below: (a) The Courts below did not apply the evidence on record and, conclusion is unsustainable; (b) The Kabala (Ext. Hence the present second appeal. 6. Mr. Y. A. Rahim, the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants, raises the following contentions in assailing the judgments of the two Courts below: (a) The Courts below did not apply the evidence on record and, conclusion is unsustainable; (b) The Kabala (Ext. 2) which is the source of title of the Plaintiff was admitted into evidence behind the back of the Defendants and could not have been considered by the Courts below and such consideration has vitiated the judgments; and (c) The property in question admittedly being the wakf property and admittedly no notice having been issued as contemplated u/s 57 of the Wakf Act, the suit is bad their mind to all therefore, their Mr. Rahenoma, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the findings of the Courts below that the Plaintiff was in possession of the land in question and grew the crop as well as the Defendants illegally removed the crop, are pure findings of fact and having been based on a thorough discussion of the evidence on record, cannot be interfered with by the second appellate Court. On the question of admitting Ext. 2 in evidence behind the back of the Plaintiff. Mr. Rahenoma contends that the same was admitted into the evidence without objection and in that view of the matter, the Defendants grievance is w holly unfounded. On the question of applicability of Section 57 of the Wakf Act. Mr. Rahenoma contends that from the Record-of-Rights (Ext. 1), it is clear that the Plaintiff?s vendors were occupancy raiyats and therefore, the wakf board was the landlord having a right to get rent. The property not being the property of the wakf, Section 57 has no application. 7. I shall now examine the rival contentions in seriatim. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is concerned, I do not find any force in the same. A perusal of both the judgments of the Courts below would indicate that the Courts below applied their mind fully to all the relevant materials and evidences, oral and documentary, and came to the conclusion that it was the Plaintiff who was in possession of the land and grow the mung crop in question and the Defendants removed the crop. A perusal of both the judgments of the Courts below would indicate that the Courts below applied their mind fully to all the relevant materials and evidences, oral and documentary, and came to the conclusion that it was the Plaintiff who was in possession of the land and grow the mung crop in question and the Defendants removed the crop. While recording the aforesaid conclusion the Courts below considered the evidence of p.w. 1, the documents, Exts. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the evidence of d. w. 1 and Ext. B. There has been a through scanning of the aforesaid material and it cannot be said that the Court, below have not applied their mind to the materials on record. As contended by Mr. Rahenoma, the questions whether the Plaintiff was in possession and grew the crop and whether the Defendants removed the mung crop are all pure questions of fact and findings thereon having been arrived at on a thorough scanning of the evidence, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal. Mr. Rahim?s contention therefore, on this score must be rejected. 8. The second contention of Mr. Rahim is equally devoid of force. As I find from the document (Ext. 2) itself, the same has been marked without any objection from the Defendants. In that view of the matter, the grievance of the Defendants on this score that it was marked behind their back is wholly unfounded and must be rejected outright. 9. The only other question which survives for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, Section 57 of the Wakf Act has any application or not Section 57 (1) of the Wakf Act, 1954. is quoted hereinbelow, in extenso: 57. Notice of suits, etc., by Courts,- (1) In every suit or proceeding relating to a title to wakf property or the right of a mutawalli, the Court shall issue notice to the Board of the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. The question for consideration in the present case is whether the present suit can be said to be a suit relating to title of wakf property or the right of a mutawalli so as to bring it within the ambit of Sub-section (1) of Section 57. Mr. Rahim, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, contends that the words ?relating to? The question for consideration in the present case is whether the present suit can be said to be a suit relating to title of wakf property or the right of a mutawalli so as to bring it within the ambit of Sub-section (1) of Section 57. Mr. Rahim, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, contends that the words ?relating to? used in Section 57 (1) of the Act are words of comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending on the context and they are not words of restrictive context and in that view of the matter, if the suit in question is in any manner relatable to a wakf property, then Section 57 (1) would apply and a notice to the Wakf Board is intended for the purpose that an illegal action of the mutawallis can be checked by the Wakf Board. In support of his aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Mad has High Court in the case of State Wakf Board, Madras v. Abdul Azeez Sahib and Ors. AIR 1968 Mad 79 . There is no dispute with the proposition that the expressions ?relating to? or the ?right of? used in Section 57 (1) should not be construed with a restrictive sense, but all the same, the suit in question must have some relation to the wakf property. The Act in question was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the better administration and supervision of wakfs and the administration the power of general superintendence in respect of all wakfs are vested in a Board established u/s 9 of the Act. It is no doubt true that the notice intended u/s 57 (1) of the Act is meant for the purpose of getting the views of the Board in relation to the title of the property to the wakf or when the right of a mutawalli is under challenge. Since in the present case Ext. 1 the Record-of-Rights of the year 1930 shows that the Plaintiff?s vendors were Sthitiban raiyats having full right of transfer, the declaration in the Gazette as ?wakf? would only mean that the Wakf Board has the right to receive rent. Since in the present case Ext. 1 the Record-of-Rights of the year 1930 shows that the Plaintiff?s vendors were Sthitiban raiyats having full right of transfer, the declaration in the Gazette as ?wakf? would only mean that the Wakf Board has the right to receive rent. In that view of the matter, there is no dispute relating to the title of the Wakf property or the right of a mutawalli and consequently, Section 57 (1) of the Wakf Act has no application howsoever extended meaning is given to the expression ?relating to? used in Section 57 (1) of the said Act. The decision of the Madras High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellants has no application to the facts and circumstances of A the present case. Accordingly, the said contention of Mr. Rahim for the Appellants is rejected. 10. All the contentions urged on behalf of the Appellants having failed, the second appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed