JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member. - The facts are : On 26-5-1982 a law suit under Section 229-B, Z.A. and Malik Masjid Waqf situate in village Mithan Kunwar, Pargana Daranagar, District Bijnor. The pleadings has set forth the contention that Mosque is owned by Khudavand Tala and it has a Managing Committee with Zamir Ahmad as President. The land is dedicated for a noble cause and its income is used for management of affairs of Mosque. The land previously was sir vesting in the Mosque and has continuously been in its occupation. It was grove and so out of consolidation. Even so by mistake it is entered in name of defendant Anwar Beg's without recording them as Mutawali Masjid. The relief to declare plaintiff bhumidhar tenant in possession has been prayed for. 2. On 24-6-1982 State of U.P. has filed a written statement. It has been pleaded that suit is barred under Section 49, C.H. Act. Also the land has not been given in Waqf to Mosque. On pleadings of parties, issues were formulated on 2-4-1983. On 25-10-1982. Anwar Beg DW/1 files his written statement. His pleading has set forth the contention that there no Waqf of this land is the rights have been decided in his favour in consolidation. Parties are given chance to read their evidence. On 13-5-1985 Sub-Divisional Officer enters and order decreeing the suit. 3. Defendant Anwar Beg's have appealed. On 5-7-1986 addl. Commissioner enters and order dismissing the appeal. Hence second appeal by defendant Anwar Beg's. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The question involved is : Whether the land in suit is waqf property or not? In AIR 1985 Allahabad 79, it has been held that if any question arises whether any property was waqf property or not, the same had to be decided by the Board under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of U.P. Muslim waqf Act, 1960. Against the decision aggrieved persons can approach Tribunal under sub-section (2) of the said section. The same position has been elucidated in 1988 AWC 24 . Such a suit is not competent in a civil suit or in a revenue court. 6. There is one more consideration. The plaintiffs pleading is that land was grove and out of consolidation. But this is not so. Right, title and interest in respect of grove-land are decided in consolidation. Such a suit is not competent in a civil suit or in a revenue court. 6. There is one more consideration. The plaintiffs pleading is that land was grove and out of consolidation. But this is not so. Right, title and interest in respect of grove-land are decided in consolidation. Grove is not included only in carvation of chak. It is admitted that in consolidation the land has been declared bhumidhari tenure of defendant Anwar Beg's. So in this view of things, the suit of plaintiff is clearly barred by Section 49, C.H. Act. 7. There is still one more consideration 1985 R.D. 445 positive that provision as contained in Section 27, Limitation Act will apply to suits Instituted under Section 229-B, Z.A. and L.R. Act. Section 27 provides that at the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting as suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished. In this perspective, it is the duty of plaintiff to prove that tenural rights of defendants have come to an end by reason of his being out of possession for the prescribed period of limitation counting it from the date of de-notification under Section 52, C.H. Act. Plaintiff-respondent have not discharged this burden. 8. One important consideration is yet. The suit is filed by Khudavand Tala, Malik Masjid, if the land is claimed to be a Waqf, the suit is to be filed by Sunni Central Waqf Board. This concept is in sharp contrast to Hindu idol which is a juristic person. After pran pratishtha : inhalation of life it becomes a living being; but its position is akin to that of an infant. An idol acts through somebody and is capable of holding property. So is certainly not the position of a Mosque. It is a place of prayer; no more no less. A property can be an endowment; a waqf but is not held by Mosque. So institution of suit by Khudawand Tala, as owner of Masjid, is not supportable in law. 9. The counsel for respondent argues that disputed land is a Waqf and Section 49, C.H. Act will not apply. He cites 1980 ALJ 57. The same is not submitted for perusal. 10. On a consideration of the foregoing, second appeal is allowed : orders of courts below are set aside. The suit of plaintiff is dismissed.