V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 02-12-1999 made in i. A. No. 757/1999 in O. S. No. 133/1998 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit O. S. No. 3487/1992 on the file of the VI Asst. Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. One late Meer Ahmed ah Khan (father of respondents 1 and 2 herein), had filed the suit alleging that he is the Muthavalli of the suit property and sought for eviction of late Syed Jameel ahmed (father of the petitioners herein ). The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Against the said judgment and the decree, the respondents father herein filed A. S. No. 133/1998 on the file of the iii Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. The respondents herein filed I. A. No. 757/1999 seeking to come on record as legal representatives to prosecute the appeal. The petitioners herein have contested the said application on the ground that no legal representative can be permitted to succeed the so called muthavalli. The Court below allowed the said application holding that any person interested in the Wakf property can also be brought on record including the person who is in de facto management of the mosque as its Muthavalli. The respondents herein are the sons of the Muthavalli and the Wakf board has appointed the father of the petitioners (sic. respondents) as Muthavalli, and therefore, they are entitled to come on record as legal representatives. ( 3 ) IF the Muthavalli is appointed by the wakf Board, Muthavalliship is not hereditary and the legal heir of the muthavalli cannot be termed Muthavalli as the appointment comes to an end immediately after the death of the person who has been appointed as Muthavalli. Where the Board appoints the Muthavalli, it is not a hereditary. The Court below did not deal with the contentions of the respondents and the objections have not been considered regarding the contention that the muthavalliship appointed by the Wakf board is not hereditary. The respondents sought to come on record as legal representatives of Muthavalli which cannot be permitted if the muthavalli is appointed by the Board. The Court below did not deal with the contentions of the respondents and the objections have not been considered regarding the contention that the muthavalliship appointed by the Wakf board is not hereditary. The respondents sought to come on record as legal representatives of Muthavalli which cannot be permitted if the muthavalli is appointed by the Board. It is not the case of the respondents that they are the persons interested in the Wakf Board, and therefore, they have a right to come on record independently. The lower appellate Court, without considering all these questions, allowed the application only on the ground that the petitioners herein are the sons of the muthavalli, and they are taking care of the suit property after the death of their father and they are interested in the property and they can be brought on record. The said order of the court below is illegal as muthavalliship appointed by the Wakf board is not hereditary. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and the court below is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the above observation in accordance with the law after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. ( 4 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.