Judgment :- 1. The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent plaintiff is one Syed Hussain Wakf represented by its Power Agent Abdul Latif. The respondent filed the suit O.S. No. 6173 of 1976 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of possession of the suit building from the appellant had two other defendants. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff Wakf and the second and third defendants are sub tenants under the first defendant. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff Wakf is a private trust to which G.O. Ms. No. 2000, Home, dated 16th August 1976 is not applicable. If the said G.O. is applicable. The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 will not be applicable to the suit building and the present suit for ejectment in a Civil Court is maintainable. 2. But, on appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate court in A.S. No. 153 has decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff Wakf is a public trust coming under the said G.O. Aggrieved by the said decree, the first defendant alone has preferred this second appeal impleading the plaintiff alone as respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant no doubt initially began to ague on one other question namely that the plaintiff Wakf can be represented only by its mutawalli and not by its alleged Power Agent Abdul Latif. But this point has not been taken as one of the grounds in this second appeal and so, I did not allow him to argue on this point. 4. So, the only question to be decided, is regarding the above said applicability or otherwise of the abovesaid G.O. No doubt, the suit was filed some months prior to the abovesaid date 16.8.1976, when the said G.O. came into force. Prior to 16.8.1986, there was another earlier G.O. dated 12.8.1974 which gave exemption to all religious trusts and charitable institutions and not merely public religious or charitable trusts. But, since the stand of both the parties in this proceedings is that only G.O. Ms. No. 2000 dated 16.8.1976 is applicable. I proceed only on that footing. 5. Regarding the abovesaid question of the applicability or otherwise of G.O. Ms. But, since the stand of both the parties in this proceedings is that only G.O. Ms. No. 2000 dated 16.8.1976 is applicable. I proceed only on that footing. 5. Regarding the abovesaid question of the applicability or otherwise of G.O. Ms. No. 2000, the learned counsel for the appellant initially submitted that there was no specific plea in this regard. In the plaint, the relevant plea is. “the suit premises being the Wakf property is exempt from Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.” According to the said counsel, there is no specific plea that the suit property was a public Wakf property. In the written statement, I find that the first defendant pleads thus: “even assuming without admitting the suit property is a Wakf property, it being a private Wakf, the same has been released from the exemption granted from the purview of the of the Rent Control Act.” The said counsels submission is that even subsequent to this plea in the written statement, no step was taken by the plaintiff to amend the plaintiff or to file a reply affidavit stating that the suit Wakf was a public Wakf only. But, I do not think that in the light of the plea taken in the written statement, it is absolutely necessary that the plaintiff should necessarily and specifically raise the plea that the suit Wakf is a public Wakf either by way of amending the plaint or by filing reply statement. Once the defendant takes up the plea that it is a private Wakf, then it is only a matter for proof to be given by the plaintiff to substantiate that the suit Wakf is not a private Wakf and but only public Wakf and that has been actually done at the trial. 6. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant also went to the other extreme, by saying that the G.O. exempts only ‘trusts’ in the strict legal sense and not a Wakf which is admittedly not a trust in the strict legal sense, since in a Wakf. Property vests not in any trustee but in God himself and the mutawalli is only a human agency to carry out the objects of the Wakf on behalf of the Almighty. I am unable to appreciate this contention. Property vests not in any trustee but in God himself and the mutawalli is only a human agency to carry out the objects of the Wakf on behalf of the Almighty. I am unable to appreciate this contention. The intention with which the abovesaid G.O. is issued is quite clear and it is applicable to all public religious or charitable endowments of Hindus, Christians and Muslims. Just for an anology, even under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, though the terms ‘trust’ is used, Courts have held that it would apply even to a Wakf vide Muhammad Kazim v. Ali Saghir 1932 11 Pat. 288 (33) A.P. 33 and it has also been held in Saratchandra v. Rabindranath 1957 A.C. 11 that the word trust as used in S. 92, C.P.C. is not used in the technical sense and would include Hindu or Muhammadan religious endowments. Therefore, I hold that the G.O. is applicable even to Wakfs. No doubt, as per the very term of the G.O. it would apply only to public Wakfs because the G.O. says: “the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the said Act. (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960)” 7. Then, it is only to be seen whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit Wakf is a public Wakf is correct. The documents that were relied on by the first appellate court for holding that it is a public Wakf are Exs. A1, A4, A5 and A7. Ex. A7 which was marked at the first appellate stage is only a certificate given by the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board that the suit Wakf is a public Wakf. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this document should not have been relied on at all. Anyway, I do not think it necessary to rely on Ex. A7 at all in the present case. I think Ex. A-4 alone is enough to hold that the suit Wakf is a public Wakf. Ex. A4 is the proforma report prepared by the Wakf Commissioner pursuant to the relevant provision under the Wakf Act and the consequent survey that was conducted in about 1955 after Wakf Act was enacted. Ex. A7 at all in the present case. I think Ex. A-4 alone is enough to hold that the suit Wakf is a public Wakf. Ex. A4 is the proforma report prepared by the Wakf Commissioner pursuant to the relevant provision under the Wakf Act and the consequent survey that was conducted in about 1955 after Wakf Act was enacted. Ex. A4 which is the proforma relating to the suit Wakf mentions inter alia the following details in the respective columns: “4. Name of the Wakf and: (Whether Sunni or Shia) Syed Hussains Wakf. (Sunni) 6. Nature of the Wakf (Whether pious, Religious or charitable or Wakf by way, Mashruthu-Khidmat or Wakf-alal-aulad). Religious Charitable 7. Object of the Wakf and conditions of grant: For the performance of Fathehah of Meeladi Nabi and Meelassani. 13. Particulars of the Wakf or properties comprised in the Wakf, with title deeds and documents relating thereto, Description, Classification, Extent, Value, of each item. (a) In case of landed property, description, extent, classification whether wet, dry, garden, building or shop etc. and the value of each item. House and ground bearing door No. Mohammed Hussain Street, Royapettah corresponding to R.S. No. 1174 of Triplicane. Extent C-0-0-1677 Valuation Rs. 4,500/- Income - Rs. 300/- p.a. Taxes-Rs. 58 - 13-0 (QR 1-0-0- Taxes.” The property that is referred to in column 13 is the suit building The abovesaid column 4 gives out the name of the suit Wakf. Regarding the nature of the Wakf, column 6 says that it is religious and charitable. Under the Muslim Law, Wakf-alal-aulad is a private Wakf and any Wakf which is not a Wakf-alal-aulad will be a Public Wakf. While describing the nature of the Wakf in column 6 above, though within bracket and underneath the expression nature of the Wakf”, different kinds of Wakfs are mentioned in cluding Wakf-alal-aulad, on the corresponding portion of the column Wakf-alal-aulad is not mentioned. This clearly indicates that the said Wakf is only a public Wakf. Wakf-alal-aulad is no doubt or two kinds. Wakf-alal-aulad simplicitor is where beneficiaries are only the settlors family and his descendants, In a composite Wakf-alal-aulad apart from the benefit to the settlor and his decendants there would be public beneficiaries also. But, in the present case it is nobodys case that the beneficiaries are either wholly or partly the settlors family and his descendants. Wakf-alal-aulad simplicitor is where beneficiaries are only the settlors family and his descendants, In a composite Wakf-alal-aulad apart from the benefit to the settlor and his decendants there would be public beneficiaries also. But, in the present case it is nobodys case that the beneficiaries are either wholly or partly the settlors family and his descendants. Further, the abovesaid column 7 of the proforma report also says that the object of the Wakf is the performance of Fathehah of Meeladi Nabi and Meelassani. That means that the Wakf has been created for the purpose of Fathehah in memory of the prophet and also for the Saint Sheik Khadir Jeelani. When such is the object of the Wakf, the Wakf cannot be called a private Wakf. The learned counsel for the respondent also drew my attention to the case in Kutub Uddin v. Wakf of Fathima Begam AIR 1940 Allahabad 383 where it has been held that the performance of fate has can be held as religious and the dedication of property for the performance of fate has is valid. Therefore, it is clear that the suit property is a public Wakf. The other document Ex. A5 has no relevance to decide the question since it is only a receipt given by the Wakf Board for the contribution paid to the Wakf Board under the Act. The other document Ex. A1 (dt. 21.9.1960) purports to be a document transferring the mutawaliship from Syed Ghulam Dastagir to Syed Hussain. The said Syed Ghulam Dastagir is mentioned as mutawalli in the proforma report also. In Ex. A1 also, it is mentioned that the property is a Wakf in favour of Holy Prophet Mohammed and Hazarath Sheik Abdul Khader Jeelani, it having been dedicated for the purpose of fathema on the 12th day of Rabiul Avvl and 11th night of Rabuissani. The learned counsel for the appellant, no doubt, sought to lay emphasis on certain expressions used in Ex. A1 as if the property belonged to the transferee absolutely and on certain deposition given by P.W. 1 the above said Abdul Latif regarding the objects of the Wakf. On reading the whole of the document, it is clear to me that the transferor therein admits that the suit property is only a Wakf property: That apart, any expression used in Ex. On reading the whole of the document, it is clear to me that the transferor therein admits that the suit property is only a Wakf property: That apart, any expression used in Ex. A1 or the abovesaid deposition of P.W. 1 cannot alter the original character of the property as borne out by Ex. A4; 8. Anyway, relying only on Ex. A4 it can be held safely that the suit building is only a public Wakf property. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant The Idol of Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman v. The Educational Trustee Co. Ltd. 1990-1-L.W. 291 has strictly no application to the present case. Therefore, the trial court committed substantial error of law in coming to the conclusion that the suit Wakf is not a Public Wakf, despite what is contained in Ex. A4 and that the lower appellate court is perfectly right in the conclusion it reached. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with costs.