( 1 ) THESE two Revisions are filed by mohammed Abdul Hameed, alias khursheed - 1st defendant in O. S. No. 58/98 and plaintiff in O. S. No. 56/98 on the file of a. P. Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad, hereinafter in short referred to as "tribunal" for the purpose of convenience. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 58/98 is the 1st respondent in C. R. P. No. 2827/2003. The tribunal on the respective pleadings of the parties had settled common Issues at para 9 of the Common Judgment and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record i. e. , the evidence of P. W. 1 - Revision petitioner herein, and the evidence of D. W. 1 to D. W. 4 and also exs. A-1 to A-37 and Exs. B-1 to B-22 and exs. X-1 to X-3, after recording certain findings ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that O. S. No. 56/98 is to be dismissed and O. S. No. 58/98 to be decreed with costs and aggrieved by the Common judgment delivered by the Tribunal, the revision petitioner had preferred these Civil revision Petitions. ( 3 ) SRI Vinod Kumar Deshpande, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner had submitted that the A. P. State wakf Board - 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 58/ 98, hereinafter in short referred to as "board", had taken a specific stand in the written statement that under Section 54 (1)of the A. P. Wakf Act, 1955, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, issued a notice dated 12-5-1998 directing the opposite party to vacate the plaint schedule property and the said party having received the said notice on 13-5-1998 had proceeded with the construction work and the Board also exercised its powers under Section 54 (3) of the Act styling the opposite party as encroacher to remove the encroachments and deliver possession of the said property to the muthawalli. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal had not considered these aspects in proper perspective and had recorded an erroneous finding that the general custodian of the property i. e. , the board, had not initiated any action. The counsel would maintain that these findings recorded by the Tribunal definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal had not considered these aspects in proper perspective and had recorded an erroneous finding that the general custodian of the property i. e. , the board, had not initiated any action. The counsel would maintain that these findings recorded by the Tribunal definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also with all vehemence had contended that even otherwise a Muthawalli as such is entitled to protect the property. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on A. S. Abdul Khader wakf for Deeni Tamil v. Saber Miah. The learned counsel while elaborating his submissions had contended that the Tribunal in fact had not properly appreciated the scope and ambit of Section 83 of the Act and had totally erred in holding that the Revision petitioner failed to establish by placing record showing the extent of land attached to the wakf institution. The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to Exs. A-7, A-15 and A-27. The counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to Ex. A-6 and also Exs. X-2 and X-3. The Counsel also had taken this Court though the findings recorded by the Tribunal and had submitted that the Tribunal should have decreed the suit O. S. No. 56/98 filed by the revision petitioner and should have dismissed the suit O. S. No. 58/98 in stead of recording erroneous findings. The Tribunal had dismissed O. S. No. 56/98 and decreed o. S. No. 58/98. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Sayyed Ali v. A. P. Wakf board, Hyderabad. ( 4 ) SRI Nalini Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff in O. S. No. 58/98 and the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 56/98 made the following submissions. The Counsel would maintain that in view of the limitations imposed on this Court in exercising powers either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 83 (9) proviso of the act, in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal this Court cannot interfere since the findings had been recorded on appreciation of evidence available on record-both oral and documentary. The learned counsel also would maintain that this Court may go into only the correctness, legality or propriety of the determination made by the tribunal and not beyond thereto and since no illegality was pointed out this Court cannot interfere while exercising Revisional jurisdiction. The Counsel also had taken this court through the evidence of D. W. 1 to d. W. 4 and the evidence of P. W. 1 and exs. A-1 to A-37 and Exs. B-1 to Board 22 and exs. X-1 to X-3 and had pointed out that clear findings had been recorded that the Revision petitioner failed to establish that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 58/98 is an encroacher and it is only a question of fact which had been recorded on appreciation of evidence and hence the said finding cannot be disturbed. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on certain decisions viz. , Sajana Granites v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao, Trimbak Gangadhar telangv. R. G. Bhide and B. R. Oswalv. Laxmibai r. Tarta. ( 5 ) SRI Qureshi, the learned Counsel representing the Board had just reiterated the stand taken by the Board in the written statement filed before the Tribunal and had repeated the same contentions which were advanced before the Tribunal. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 7 ) THE Revision petitioner instituted the suit O. S. No. 56/98 on the file of the Tribunal for mandatory injunction praying for a direction for removal of the construction made on the grave yard land of Bur Hauz, goshamahal, Hyderabad over the suit property and to remove dumped material on the suit grave yard land and a money decree against 1st defendant in the said suit for illegally using grave yard land by dumping the construction material on grave yard land on 14-4-1998 to 31-5-1998 at rs. 50/- per day upto the date of removal and future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of removal of the same from the grave yard land. The respective pleadings of the parties in O. S. No. 56/98 are as hereunder: it was pleaded that there is a old grave yard called Grave yard Bur Hauz, Gosha mahal. The respective pleadings of the parties in O. S. No. 56/98 are as hereunder: it was pleaded that there is a old grave yard called Grave yard Bur Hauz, Gosha mahal. The said grave yard is registered wakf as per File No. 2/2223/ibtadai of 1350 fasli and the same is managed by Mutha walli and the present Muthawalli is the plaintiff who is appointed in place of his deceased father Gulam Mohammed, alias Iqbal as per resolution No. 122/85 dated 1-6-1985. It was further pleaded that on the Eastern side of the grave yard abutting street there was encroachment by 1st defendant and the 1st defendant opened doors on the Western side of his occupied H. No. 15-1-300 at about 169 sq. yards of the grave yard. The plaintiff complained against the encroachment and the opening of doors and window in the grave yard land, but the 2nd defendant had not taken any effective steps and neither the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad nor police had protected from encroaching and opening the doors and thereby the defendant had habitually became law breaker and trouble monger for the institution of the grave yard and it is managing the affairs ignoring that the grave yard cannot be used for any other purpose against the tenets of islam and feelings and sentiments of the kith and kin of the buried. The 1st defendant, as self-styled leader of the locality people have won over the political parties and in fact made proposals for laying road and the water supply pipe line in the middle of the grave yard land against the interest of the institution. The 1st defendant and their henchmen, mostly of the Feelkhana Camp people, made attempt to make use of the open land of the grave yard for play ground. They would have succeeded in their evil attempt had the plaintiff been little lethargic. The plaintiff further stated that the 1st defendant started the construction of his occupied H. No. 15-1-300 which is on the encroached land of the grave yard without proper municipal permits and plans and without No objection certificate from the 2nd defendant, abutting and encroaching the grave yard land during the first week of april 1998. Immediately the plaintiff had complained to the 2nd defendant, police and the Municipal authorities but the 2nd defendant, the Municipal authorities and the Police had not taken any action as per law. Immediately the plaintiff had complained to the 2nd defendant, police and the Municipal authorities but the 2nd defendant, the Municipal authorities and the Police had not taken any action as per law. The Municipal authorities and particularly the Assistant Town Planner, circle II under the 3rd defendant had ignored their prime and foremost duty to implement the Municipal law and save the wakf land. The 1st defendant, against the law and without any authority, on 14-4-1998 entered the grave yard and dumped the construction material i. e. , sand, brick and concrete in the grave yard open land removing the boundary stones fixed by the Court bailiff of the VIII assistant Judge,city Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiff complained to the Police inspector, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad but the police had not taken any action as per law and did not launch prosecution against the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant, after great persuasion, deputed their Surveyor who made detailed survey of the grave yard and reported the matter to the higher authorities for their action. Thereupon, a notification under Section 54 (1) of the Act was issued and the time specified in the notice elapsed long back. Except the above notice, the 2nd defendant could not take any effective action to stop the construction made by the 1st defendant to protect the grave yard. It was also pleaded that taking advantage of the situation and the lethargic attitude of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, the 1st defendant speeded up the construction work day and night of the H. No. 154-300 where almost all the grave yard land had been encroached. The 1st defendant with the support of anti social elements and because of the lethargic attitude of the defendants 2 and 3, without minding the notice issued under Section 54 (1) of the Act by passing the Municipal laws is attempting to complete the construction work of the H. No. 15-1-300, Feel Khana, Hyderabad with the evil intention of causing loss to the grave yard. ( 8 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement pleading as hereunder: the existence of the grave yard at goshamahal is admitted and that the 1st defendant is aware of the registration of the said grave yard as wakf property. It is denied by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff is the present Muthawalli. It was pleaded that sri Ghulam Mohd. It is denied by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff is the present Muthawalli. It was pleaded that sri Ghulam Mohd. Alias Iqbal used to manage the affairs of the grave yard. It was further pleaded that the 1st defendant had no knowledge of the resolution referred by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had fabricated a story of encroachment. There is no encroachment on any part of the grave yard nor any door had been opened on the Western side of H. No. 15-1-300. The extent of the house, boundaries and dimensions also are not correctly stated. It was pleaded that the 1st defendant had never styled himself as a leader nor had he ever proposed laying of roads and water pipe line at any site. It is false to state that the 1st defendant is involved in the alleged use of open land of the grave yard as play ground. It is also false to state that the 1st defendant started construction on the encroached land. It was pleaded that the construction is old and that there were minor repairs of the old constructions. It was also further pleaded that the 2nd defendant had not issued No objection certificate nor there was any application to this effect by the 1st defendant and the alleged date of construction is also wrong. It was further pleaded that the 1st defendant had not dumped any construction material nor had he removed any boundary stone at the site. The 1st defendant is not aware of the proceedings of the VIII Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad nor is he aware of the complainant to the police. The 1st defendant is not aware of survey by the 2nd defendant and he had not received any notice about the survey proceedings from the 2nd defendant. It is clarified that the notice under section 54 (1) of Act referring to the survey carried by 2nd defendant was issued by the 2nd defendant was not replied to as neither the survey was conducted within the knowledge of the 1st defendant nor it contained any measurements of the alleged encroachment. The allegation that the 1st defendant attempted completion of the construction also is false. The allegation that the 1st defendant attempted completion of the construction also is false. ( 9 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a written statement as hereunder: it was pleaded that the grave yard Bur houz situated at Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad is a registered wakf property registered in the year 1350 Fasli and was also notified in a. P. Gazette No. 44, dated 7-11-1985 and the plaintiff is the approved Muthawalli by the 2nd defendant. The allegation that the 2nd defendant could not take any action against the 1st defendant is false. The 2nd defendantnon receipt of representation dated 15-4-1998 from the plaintiff against the 1st defendant that he started illegal construction dumping the construction material and starting construction and disfigured some graves etc. , addressed a letter to the Assistant town Planner dated 25-4-1998 requesting him to demolish the illegal structures and also not to allow anybody to carry out any construction thereon. It was further pleaded that the premises No. 15-1-300 is over the wakf land which is situated in the grave yard bur Houz, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. The 2nd defendant had deputed the office Surveyor for inspection and report and consequent on receipt of the report of the Surveyor and record and the material available with the officeof the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant again addressed to the commissioner,m. C. H. vide letter dated 11-5-1998 marking copy to the Assistant Town Planner, Circle II, M. C. H. Hyderabad to demolish the unauthorized construction but no action was taken and as such the 2nd defendant in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Act issued a show cause notice under Section 54 (1) of the Act for eviction of the encroached area by 12-5-1998. Since no reply was given by the 1st defendant and no cause shown within the stipulated period, the 2nd defendant in exercise of the provisions as contemplated under Section 54 (3) of the Act had issued orders directing the 1st defendant for the delivery of possession of the suit property to the 2nd defendant. The said order was served upon the 1st defendant on 10-6-1998. The 1st defendant had no authority of right over the suit property to carry out construction over the same as the suit property is a wakf property. The said order was served upon the 1st defendant on 10-6-1998. The 1st defendant had no authority of right over the suit property to carry out construction over the same as the suit property is a wakf property. ( 10 ) LIKEWISE, the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 56/98 as plaintiff instituted the suit o. S. No. 58/98 praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, subordinates, workmen, representatives etc. , from demolishing or otherwise interfering with the house bearing No. 15-1-300 old feelkhana, admeasuring 169 sq. yards, hyderabad. The 1st respondent/plaintiff in the said suit had pleaded as hereunder: the plaintiff is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of double storey house admeasuring 169 sq. yards bearing Municipal no. 15-1-300 situated at old Feelkhana, hyderabad. It is clarified that the suit schedule property building belonged to (1) late Khairunnisa Begum, w/o. S. K. Subhan, (2) Mohd. Umar, s/o. Shaik Osman, (3) kousia Begum w/o. Amzad and (4) Shakila begum who are pattedars of land. Originally, patta was granted to these vendors in the year 1989. Having purchased the land in the year 1990, the plaintiff got demolished the then existing structures over the site and built a double story building therein. It is further clarified that the pattedar was in possession and enjoyment of the site when it changed hands in favour of the plaintiff. Having purchased the said suit schedule property, the plaintiff got boundary stones fixed and dumped building material thereon. The plaintiff since the date of purchase is residing in the suit schedule property with his family members without any interruption from any persons. The plaintiff obtained telephone in his name and obtained ration card, water connection, electricity connection only in the name of pattedar. The 1st defendant claiming Muthawalliship of the land forming part of plaintiff s suit schedule property alleged that the same is part of grave yard. Defendants 2 and 3, their men, staff and subordinate employees are illegally threatened to demolish the said house without issuing notice. Since the property is being claimed as wakf, the 3rd defendant was impleaded. The plaintiff further stated that defendants 2 and 3 colluded with the 1st defendant and attempted to demolish the plaintiff s old house which was constructed long back. Since the property is being claimed as wakf, the 3rd defendant was impleaded. The plaintiff further stated that defendants 2 and 3 colluded with the 1st defendant and attempted to demolish the plaintiff s old house which was constructed long back. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property prior to plaintiff s vendors were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption. The 1st defendant filed false suit against plaintiff on the file of the Tribunal in O. S. No. 56/98 for declaration and injunction and obtained interim injunction in I. A. NO. 89/98. The 1st defendant has no manner of right, title or interest to the lands mentioned in the schedule and on the other hand the 2nd defendant unlawfully and malafidely claimed the suit schedule property as part and parcel of the grave yard and defendants 2 and 3 without any prior notice attempted to demolish the suit schedule property and as such act is mala fide and illegal notice under Section 685 of the m. C. H. Act need not be issued to the defendants 2 and 3 under the Act. The defendants without any notice or right, all of a sudden on 17-6-1998 attempted to demolish the suit schedule property, but with the timely help of neighbours and passers-bye the plaintiff resisted the same. Again, the defendants attempted to demolish the suit property on 18-6-1998 forcibly, but the plaintiff resisted with great difficulty and on account of timely help rendered by neighbours and passers-bye the defendants had been prevented from demolishing the suit property by the plaintiff. ( 11 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement contending as hereunder. There is a old grave yard called Grave Yard Bur Houz gosha Mahal. The said grave yard is registered wakf as per f ile No. 2/2223/ibtdai of 1350 Fasli. The said grave yard is managed by the Muthawalli and the 1st defendant is the present Muthawalli of the grave yard who was appointed in place of his deceased father and Muthawalli as per resolution no. 122/1985 dated 1-6-1985 and managing the affairs of the grave yard ever since then. The said grave yard is managed by the Muthawalli and the 1st defendant is the present Muthawalli of the grave yard who was appointed in place of his deceased father and Muthawalli as per resolution no. 122/1985 dated 1-6-1985 and managing the affairs of the grave yard ever since then. It was pleaded that on the Eastern side of the grave yard abutting the street, there was encroachment by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had opened doors and windows of his occupied house No. 15-1-300 which is also on encroached land of the grave yard itself. The plaintiff had complained against the encroachments to the Board, the Municipal corporation and to the police, but the authorities had not taken any action against the plaintiff for his illegal acts and misdeeds. The plaintiff had ignored that as per the tenets of Islam, the grave yards land cannot be used except for burial of dead bodies of muslims. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff, as a self-styled leader to locality people, have won over the political parties and in fact made proposals for laying road and water supply pipe line in the middle of the grave yard land against the interest of the Institution of the grave yard. The plaintiff and his henchmen, mostly Feelkhana camp inhabitants, made attempts to make use of the grave yard open land as play ground and partly succeeded in the evil design for laying pipe line dismantling and disfiguring the graves in the middle of the grave yard land in the month of July 1998 and the plaintiff took active role. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff started encroaching on the land and occupied H. No. 15-1-300 without obtaining any municipal permit and sanction and further encroached the grave yard land during the first week of April 1998. Immediately this defendant made complaint to the Board, Police and the Hyderabad municipal authorities, but none of them took any action against the illegalities as per law to check the construction work. Immediately this defendant made complaint to the Board, Police and the Hyderabad municipal authorities, but none of them took any action against the illegalities as per law to check the construction work. The plaintiff, against the law and without any authority, high handedly on 14-4-1998 entered in the grave yard land and dumped construction material i. e. , sand, bricks and concrete, removing the boundary stones and barbed wire fixed by the Court bailiff of VIII Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E. P. No. 49/89 in O. S. No. 1760/75 while giving delivery of land. The Board deputed their surveyor who made detailed survey of the grave yard land and reported the matter to higher officials of the Board for their action. Thereafter, the Executive Officer of the Board inspected the illegal construction work started by the plaintiff over the encroached grave yard land. Thereafter, notice under section 54 (1) of the Act was issued to the plaintiff on 12-5-1998 about the encroachments made by the plaintiff even after not caring and violating the injunction orders of the Tribunal on 10-6-1998 in I. A. No. 89/98 in O. S. No. 56/98 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and others. It was further pleaded that the present suit filed is a counter blast to the suit O. S. No. 56/98 for violating the injunction orders of the Tribunal by the plaintiff. ( 12 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a written statement as hereunder: the suit property is a wakf property and as such none has got any right or authority to issue pattas as alleged by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that it was held by the Apex Court that wakf means permanent dedication in the name of Almighty God and once a wakf always a wakf and grant of the patta in favour of any one does not in any manner nullify the original dedication made in respect of the property constituting the same as wakf and granting of pattas does not affect the original character. It was admitted that the 1st defendant is the Muthawalli of the grave yard forming part of the suit property and he is appointed as Muthawalli of the same by the 2nd defendant to manage and look after the suit property and the grave yard. It was admitted that the 1st defendant is the Muthawalli of the grave yard forming part of the suit property and he is appointed as Muthawalli of the same by the 2nd defendant to manage and look after the suit property and the grave yard. The plaintiff had encroached over the suit property which is a part and parcel of the grave yard Bur Houz and the plaintiff is liable to be evicted from the suit property. The plaintiff is claiming that the suit property belongs to him and in the other breath he had filed the present suit. It was pleaded that the tribunal is constituted only to decide the matters pertaining to wakf. The plaintiff had encroached over the suit property and carrying on illegal and unauthorized construction over the wakf property, that too without the sanction of M. C. H. and as such the 2nd defendant addressed a letter to the 3rd defendant to demolish the unauthorized construction, but due to the inaction of M. C. H. /3rd defendant the plaintiff continued the illegal construction with a mala fide intention to strengthen his encroachment. The 2nd defendant issued notice under Section 54 (1) of the Act to the plaintiff directing him to vacate the suit property vide notice dated 12-5-1998. The plaintiff received the said notice on 13-5-1998 but in stead of vacating, continued the construction work with more speed. Since the plaintiff had not given reply within the stipulated time, the 2nd defendant issued proceedings by exercising powers conferred under Section 54 (3) of the Act directing the encroacher to remove the encroachments and to deliver possession of the suit property to the Muthawalli. ( 13 ) ON the respective pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal had settled the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the suit is bad for non-compliance of notice under Section 89 of Wakf Act? (2) Whether the suit is properly valued? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the owner of the suit land? (4) Whether the construction made by the 1st defendant over the suit property and the same comes under purview of MCH Act? (5) Whether the construction made by 1st defendant over the suit property is liable to be demolished as prayed for? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against defendants? (7) To what relief? (4) Whether the construction made by the 1st defendant over the suit property and the same comes under purview of MCH Act? (5) Whether the construction made by 1st defendant over the suit property is liable to be demolished as prayed for? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against defendants? (7) To what relief? the Revision petitioner/mohammed abdul Hammed, plaintiff in O. S. No. 56/98 and 1st defendant in O. S. No. 58/98, was examined as P. W. 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-37 were marked. Likewise, the plaintiff in o. S. No. 58/98 was examined as D. W. I and other witnesses as D. W. 2 to D. W. 4 and exs. B-1 to B-22 were marked. Exs. X-1 to X-3 also were marked. After recording certain findings, the Tribunal ultimately had dismissed O. S. No. 56/98 and decreed o. S. No. 58/98, with costs and aggrieved by the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are preferred. ( 14 ) EVIDENCE was recorded in O. S. No. 56/98 since both the suits were clubbed for joint trial, P. W. I deposed that he is the muthawalli of the grave yard Bur House, at gosha Mahal, rgistered as wakf institution. Ex. A-1 is the munthakab issued by the Board. P. W. I also deposed that the 1st defendant in o. S. No. 56/98 who is the plaintiff in o. S. No. 58/98 opened a door and window on the Eastern side of the house and he had reported the same to the Board and the municipal Corporation and also to the Police, but they had not taken any action. Exs. A-2 and A-3 are the office copies of the letters sent to the Board and the Police and Ex. A-4 is the reply from H. U. D. A. and Ex. A-5 is the reply given to H. U. D. A. stating that records are available with the Board. Ex. A-6 is the certified copy of the grave yard plan. P. W. 1 specifically deposed that the 1st defendant had completely demolished the House bearing No. 15-1-300 and began constructing a new house by encroaching on the site belonging to grave yard and P. W. 1 gave representation to the Board. Ex. A-8 is the representation given to the Assistant Town planner, Ex. A-9 is a copy of the letter addressed to Police, Ex. Ex. A-8 is the representation given to the Assistant Town planner, Ex. A-9 is a copy of the letter addressed to Police, Ex. A-10 is a copy of the letter addressed to the Board, Ex. A-11 is a copy of the letter addressed to Station House officer, Begum Bazar Police Station. Ex. A-12 is the letter sent to the Additional commissioner, South Zone, M. C. H. , ex. A-13 is the office copy to letter to the commissioner, Municipal Corporation of hyderabad, Ex. A-14 is yet another letter, ex. A-15 is a copy of the proceedings, Ex. A-1 6 to A-26 are the photos along with negatives, ex. A-27, A-28 and A-29 are the copies of the letters, Ex. A-30 is the Gazette notification, ex. A-31 is the representation, Ex. A-32, A-33, a-34 and A-35 are also the acknowledgment by Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development authority, representation, copy sent to Sri p. C. R. Raju, Deputy Director, Hyderabad and copy of Ex. A-33 sent to Inspector of police. Ex. A-36 is the copy of the complaint and Ex. A-37 is the application to Board for copies of Muntakab and other documents. It is no doubt true that except the evidence of p. W. I, there is no other evidence. Though certain suggestions were put to him relating to identity of the property and also to the effect that two grave yards are available, all these suggestions were denied. The contesting party had examined himself as d. W. 1 and Exs. B-1 to B-21 were marked. D. W. 1 deposed in detail in relation to Ex. B-1 to B-8 photos, Exs. B-9 and B-10 are the abstract of assessment register of property tax for the years 1951 to 1958 in Urdu, Ex. B-11 to B-13 are the extracts of assessment register of property tax for the years 1968 to 1973,1973 to 1983 and 1982 to 1998. Ex. B-14 is a certified true copy of the plan issued by Board, ex. B-15 is a certified true copy of muntakab relating to Bur House grave yard, Ex. B-16 to b-18 are photos, Exs. B-19 to B-21 are the electricity bills, Ex. B-22 is true copy of Gazette notification. Ex. X-1 is the Surveyor s report, ex. X-2 is the plan showing the grave yard, bur House, Goshamahal and Ex. X-3 is the inspection report of the Executive Officer of the Board, dated 13-5-1998. B-16 to b-18 are photos, Exs. B-19 to B-21 are the electricity bills, Ex. B-22 is true copy of Gazette notification. Ex. X-1 is the Surveyor s report, ex. X-2 is the plan showing the grave yard, bur House, Goshamahal and Ex. X-3 is the inspection report of the Executive Officer of the Board, dated 13-5-1998. No doubt, D. W. 1 had specifically denied having encroached over the temporary belonging to the grave yard and the stand taken by the D. W. 1 is that there are several complaints against this muthawalli and representations were sent to the Board and that is the reason why he is having grudge against him and had filed the present suit. D. W. 2 deposed that the 1st defendant is residing in premises No. 15- 1-300, Feelkhana and originally houses were constructed by H. E. H. Nizam and later handed over to City Improvement Board and later they were taken overby the Housing board and from the Housing Board, the government acquired and issued pattas. There is evidence of D. W. 3 and D. W. 4 also who had deposed to the fact that D. W. 1 never encroached over any portion of the property belonging to the Wakf or the grave yard. ( 15 ) IT is pertinent to note that though the evidence of D. W. 2 to D. W. 4 is available on record apart from the evidence of D. W. 1, the evidence of D. W. 3 and D. W. 4 is just general in nature and the evidence of D. W. 2 also does not throw much light on the identity of the property or the actual encroachment. As can be seen from the findings recorded by the Tribunal below principally on the question of burden of proof the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Muthawalli who had instituted the suit O. S. No. 56/98 had failed to establish the real extent of the property of the Wakf and in that view of the matter the Tribunal had recorded a fit (?) in favour of the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 56/98 who is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 58/98 and had ultimately decreed the suit. It is very essential to note that the mere failure on the part of muthawalli to establish the case in o. S. No. 56/98 automatically would notenure to the benefit of the 1st defendant in o. S. No. 56/98 who is the plaintiff in o. S. No. 58/98. In O. S. No. 58/98 when the plaintiff, the 1st respondent herein, is praying for a specific positive relief, he has to establish the obligation on the part of the defendants in the said suit so as not to disturb his possession in any way and hence the mere failure on the part of Muthawalli, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 56/98 to establish his case as pleaded by him, cannot be automatically taken as though the plaintiff in O. S. No. 58/98 is entitled for the relief prayed for. The Tribunal in fact while concluding observed as hereunder:". . . . . . . . . . . . The main point that emerges for consideration is that, on the representation of plaintiff who happens to be Muthawalli, not only Wakf Board, but also MCH, HUDA and police have not taken any action. Wakf Board who is the custodian of the wakf properties, admittedly conducted survey but no action is initiated by the Wakf Board against defendant for alleging any type of encroachment over the land belonging to grave yard, In this view of the matter, it is the Wakf Board who is the custodian of Wakf Institutions has to act. In the light of the report submitted by Surveyor of Wakf Board, in all possibilities Board should have initiated legal action against the defendant for his alleged encroachment of land of grave yard. Secondly, plaintiff has to establish the record showing the extent of land attached to Wakf Institution. At one point he stated that wakf institution has got 6000 to 7000 sq. yards. The extent of portion of grave yard shown in Ex. B-6 is 2000 sq. yds. Therefore, the plaintiff is not certain as to how much extent of land is attached to wakf institution. It is the consistent contention of the plaintiff that defendant has encroached into the land belonging to wakf institution. For the best reasons known to plaintiff that the did not choose to initiate any action with the assistance of Wakf Board on the alleged encroachment. It is the consistent contention of the plaintiff that defendant has encroached into the land belonging to wakf institution. For the best reasons known to plaintiff that the did not choose to initiate any action with the assistance of Wakf Board on the alleged encroachment. Plaintiff evidence do not establish that there is any encroachment as contended by him by the defendant. Exs. X-1, Ex. X-2 show that the extent is 2003 sq. yds. But according to plaintiff the extent is 6000 to 7000 sq. yds. No plan of the grave yard is filed. It is crystal clear that the house of defendant constructed during the regime of nizam. Wakf Board who is the general custodian of the property has not initiated any action against defendant that he is the encroacher belonging to the land of grave yard. In this view of the matter, I hold that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant encroached land belonging to the grave yard and he is not certain what is the extent of the grave yard. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff in O. S. 56/98 is proved to be false. "there cannot be any doubt or controversy that a person who prays for a positive relief may have to establish his case. The Tribunal mainly proceeded on the ground that Wakf board who is the general custodian of the property had not initiated any action against the 1st respondent on the ground that he is an encroacher of the land belonging to the grave yard. In the decision referred (1) supra, it was held that Muthawally is a person who will manage or supervise the wakf properties and his position is just akin to a Trustee and a Muthawally can definitely institute a suit for recovery of possession of the properties from tenants and also for appropriate reliefs. To explain the nature and character of wakf property, strong reliance was placed on the decisions referred (2), (3), (4) and (5) supra. There cannot be any controversy that even the Muthawalli as plaintiff has locus standi to maintain the suit O. S. No. 56/98. Ample material had been placed before the court to substantiate the stand taken by the Revision petitioner/plaintiff in O. S. No. 56/98. There cannot be any controversy that even the Muthawalli as plaintiff has locus standi to maintain the suit O. S. No. 56/98. Ample material had been placed before the court to substantiate the stand taken by the Revision petitioner/plaintiff in O. S. No. 56/98. As can be seen from the material available on record, though the Board had taken the specific stand that the suit property is the wakf property, no evidence was let in on behalf of the Board. Apart from this aspect of the matter, except the evidence of P. W. 1, no doubt supported by the documentary evidence Exs. A-1 to a-37 and Exs. X-1 to X-3, no other oral evidence had been let in on behalf of the revision petitioner. The other oral evidence let in apart from the evidence of D. W. 1, more or less, is of general nature. Evidently, the tribunal was more guided by the principles of burden of proof and had arrived at a conclusion that since the Revision petitioner / muthawalli failed to establish his case, the 1st respondent is entitled to succeed in his suito. S. No. 58/98. Section 83 of the Act deals with Constitution of Tribunals etc. , and section 83 (9) specifies as hereunder: no appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal: provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or property of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit. In the decision referred (4) supra, the Apex court held that it is only when an order of a tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept in or when the order passed results in manifest injustice that a court can intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reliance also had been placed on the decision referred (5) supra. Reliance also had been placed on the decision referred (5) supra. In the decision referred (3) supra, the Division Bench while dealing with section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 had arrived at a conclusion that where the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title he should succeed only on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants and the defendants need not plead and prove possible defects in plaintiff s title and even if defendants fail to establish their own title, plaintiff must be non-suited if he fails to establish his title. ( 16 ) THE concerned Muthawalli, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 56/98, being aggrieved of the Common Judgment as a person falling within the meaning of "any person aggrieved" in the proviso to Section 83{9) of the Act had preferred these Revisions. This court can definitely satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the determination made by the Tribunal and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination and pass such other order as it may think fit. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and on a careful examination of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, I am thoroughly satisfied that the approach adopted by the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence available on record especially in relation to the burden of proof, definitely cannot be said to be in accordance with law. It is also pertinent to note that the Board had taken a specific stand that the property in question is the wakf property and the muthawalli had approached the court taking a specific stand and the voluminous correspondence definitely goes to show that this Muthawalii has been agitating the matter at all levels. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the impugned Common Judgment in o. S. Nos. 56 and 58 of 1998 on the file of the tribunal cannot be sustained. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned Common judgment in O. S. Nos. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the impugned Common Judgment in o. S. Nos. 56 and 58 of 1998 on the file of the tribunal cannot be sustained. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned Common judgment in O. S. Nos. 56 and 58 of 1998 on the file of the A. P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 4-4-2003 is hereby set aside and both the matters are remitted to the Tribunal to give opportunity to all the parties concerned inclusive of the Board to adduce further evidence, if any, relating to all the Issues which had been settled between the parties and dispose of the matters in accordance with law. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. C. R. F. Nos. 2827 and 2855 of 2003. Heard the counsel on record. 2. Sri Nalini Kumar had brought to the notice of this court that the plaintiff in o. S. No. 58 of 1998 on the file of A. P. Wakf tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) at hyderabad, had the advantage of interim orders during the pendency of the suit and that by virtue of this order remitting both the matters back to the Tribunal, if any further action is initiated, the plaintiff would suffer heavy loss. In view of the same status quo as on today in all respects to be maintained till the final disposal of the matters by the tribunal. The parties also request the court for early disposal of these matters. It is needless to state that the Tribunal is expected to dispose of both the matters as early as possible, as per the directions specified supra, at any rate preferably within a period of four (4) months from today.