Judgment :- This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A. S. No. 255/1976 dated 5-10-1984 reversing that of the District Munsif, Cuddalore in O. S. No. 556/73 dated 12-2-1976. 2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the present second appeal. 3. The suit was filed by the State Wakf Board, the respondent herein, for declaration of their title to the suit property and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. 4. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court had decreed the suit as prayed for and hence the present second appeal by the defendants. 5. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the appeal having regard to the fact that a statutory bar has been created under Section 87 of the Wakf Act, 1995. Section 87 is as follows : "BAR TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT ON BEHALF OF UNREGISTERED WAKFS : 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no suit, appeal or other legal proceeding for the enforcement of any right on behalf of any wakf which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be instituted or commenced or heard, tried or decided by any Court after the commencement of this Act, or where any such suit, appeal or other legal proceeding had been instituted or commenced before such commencement, no such suit appeal or other legal proceeding shall be continued, heard, tried or decided by any Court after such commencement unless such wakf has been registered, in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 2. The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as far as may be, to the claim for set-off or any other claim made on behalf of any wakf which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act." It is admitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board that the plaintiff Wakf has not been registered in terms of Section 87 of the Act. Under Section 43 of the same Act, it is held that if the Wakf had been registered under the law for the time being in force, it shall not be necessary to register the Wakf again under the provisions of the said 1995 Act. Under Section 43 of the same Act, it is held that if the Wakf had been registered under the law for the time being in force, it shall not be necessary to register the Wakf again under the provisions of the said 1995 Act. Before me, it is admitted as a fact that the plaintiff/Wakf has not been duly registered either under Section 87 of the 1995 Act or under any of the corresponding provisions of the earlier Act. Therefore, the bar under the Section would apply. 6. The counsel for the Wakf Board further contends that the bar under the said provision will apply to a Wakf only if the present second appeal had been filed at the instance of the Wakf Board. In other words, only the suits and appeals filed by the plaintiff alone can be the subject matter of the bar under Section 87 of the Act. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The fact remains that the suit was filed by the Wakf. It is settled proposition of law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding and until final decision is rendered in proceeding, the suit is presumed to be pending. Acceptance of such interpretation by the learned counsel for the appellant on Section 87 of the Act, will only lead to a glaring discrimination namely that Section 87 would apply only in cases where the Wakf Board had lost the suit and not in cases where the Wakf Board had succeeded in the suit. Such a construction is neither rational nor warranted and hence not acceptable. With the result, the suit filed by the Wakf Board cannot be continued in view of the bar under Section 87 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would also seek permission of this Court to institute a fresh suit after the Wakf is duly registered. This request is resisted by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that there is neither an application before this Court as provided under C.P.C. nor is it permissible having regard to the rights of parties as on the date of the suit under Appeal. This request is resisted by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that there is neither an application before this Court as provided under C.P.C. nor is it permissible having regard to the rights of parties as on the date of the suit under Appeal. It is not necessary for this Court to deal with the merits of said issue in as much there is no petition before this Court seeking any liberty to file a fresh suit. 8. With the result, the appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed. No costs. Appeal allowed.