BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by 7th defendant against the judgment and decree dt. 5. 2. 1983 passed by the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. S. No. 236 of 1982. The trial Court declared that the suit property was Wakf property under Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb Pattargatti. It also declared the sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 and 7 in respect of suit properties null and void. It also passed a decree of eviction. Costs of the suit were also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. ( 2 ) THE suit was laid by the plaintiffs on the ground that Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb and the houses thereunder were Wakf properties from times immemorial. Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb and its properties were used and recognized as Wakf properties. They were registered as wakf and a Muntakhab No. 1191 was issued which was notified in the Gazette dt. 17. 2. 1955. The houses under the Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb which are suit properties have been illegally occupied by the defendants. 2nd plaintiff filed a petition with department to appoint her as Mutawalli of the said institution as she was only the rightful successor to late Mutawalli Sri Mir Gulzar Ali. Consequently she was appointed and recognized as Mutawalli of the said institution. Her name was entered in Muntakhab. Since her appointment the 2nd plaintiff was discharging the duties of Mutawalli of the said Ashoorkhana. The houses bearing No. 22-7-148 (Old No. 1-C-7-148), H. No. 22-7-151 (Old No. 1-C-7-151) and H. No. 22-7-157 (Old No. 1-C-7-151) were wakf properties under the said Ashoorkhana and were meant for residence of the Mutawalli. The step mother of 2nd plaintiff Smt. Dargai Begum who was wife of old Mutawalli Gulzar Ali was residing in H. No. 22-7-148. After appointment of 2nd plaintiff as Mutawalli, Dargai Begum continued to reside in the house bearing No. 22-7-148 with permission of 2nd plaintiff. As Dargai Begum was old, she wanted her relatives to look after her and she sought permission from 2nd plaintiff to allow her to keep her relatives in the adjoining houses. Accordingly 2nd plaintiff granted permission to Dargai Begum to keep her younger sister Lala Begum and other relatives in the houses bearing Nos. 22-7-151 and 22-7-157. As Dargai Begum was old, she wanted her relatives to look after her and she sought permission from 2nd plaintiff to allow her to keep her relatives in the adjoining houses. Accordingly 2nd plaintiff granted permission to Dargai Begum to keep her younger sister Lala Begum and other relatives in the houses bearing Nos. 22-7-151 and 22-7-157. They took advantage of the possession over the houses and 1st defendant got obtained three sale deeds in his favour from late Dargai Begum within a period of 15 days prior to her death when she was extremely ill and was not in her senses. These sale deeds were got executed by exercising undue influence and playing fraud upon Dargai Begum in collusion with late Lala Begum. Under sale deed dt. 19. 12. 1963 Dargai Begum transferred the house bearing No. 22-7-148 in favour of 1st defendant for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-, under sale deed dt. 19. 12. 1963 she transferred the house bearing No. 22-7-151 in favour of 1st defendant for a consideration of Rs. 1700/- and under third sale deed dt. 19. 12. 1963 late Dargai Begum transferred house bearing No. 22-7-147 in favour of 1st defendant for a consideration of Rs. 300/ -. It was contended by the plaintiffs that it was doubtful whether any consideration was paid at all to late Dargai Begum. These sale deeds were challenged as null and void, as no wakf property could be transferred under law without obtaining prior permission from 1st plaintiff and Dargai Begum or even the Mutawalli i. e. , 2nd plaintiff could not sell or transfer the suit properties in any manner whatsoever. After the death of Dargai Begum, 1st defendant illegally took possession of the houses and then let out illegally the house bearing No. 22-7-151 to 2nd defendant, a portion of house bearing No. 22-7-148 to 3rd defendant and the remaining portion to 4th defendant and H. No. 22-7-157 to defendants 5 and 6. Therefore it was contended that the occupation of these houses by defendants 2 to 6 was unauthorized and illegal. The plaintiff asked the defendants 2 to 6 to vacate the houses and deliver possession, but the defendants failed to comply with it, therefore the suit was filed. ( 3 ) 1st defendant filed his written statement denying that the 2nd plaintiff was Mutavalli of Ashoorkhana. The plaintiff asked the defendants 2 to 6 to vacate the houses and deliver possession, but the defendants failed to comply with it, therefore the suit was filed. ( 3 ) 1st defendant filed his written statement denying that the 2nd plaintiff was Mutavalli of Ashoorkhana. It was admitted that Ashoorkhana was wakf property, but it was contended that the suit houses are not part and parcel of wakf property. He also denied that the suit houses were recognized as wakf property since times immemorial. He also denied that the suit houses were registered as wakf and Muntakhab No. 1191 was issued which was notified in the Gazette dt. 17. 2. 1955. He further contended that even if the suit houses had been entered in the so called Muntakhab, even then also the said entries were illegal. It was also denied that Dargai Begum was residing in H. No. 22-7-148 as a wife of late Gulzar Ali. It was contended that Smt. Dargai Begum was the absolute owner and possessor of the said houses and she was competent to sell the same and the said houses were sold to him by her through registered sale deeds. It was contended that merely because late Dargai Begum was the wife of late Gulzar Ali, it does not mean that the suit houses were wakf property. No permission was sought by Dargai Begum from 2nd plaintiff to stay in the suit houses for herself and for her relatives. It was also denied that when the sale deeds were executed by Dargai Begum, she was extremely ill. It was also denied that 1st defendant exerted undue influence and played fraud upon Dargai Begum after collusion with late Lala Begum. Dargai Begum herself with her free will and pleasure sold the suit houses to 1st defendant through sale deeds after receiving consideration amount. 1st defendant had purchased the suit houses for a valuable consideration. He also stated that the house bearing No. 22-7-148 had been sold by him through a registered sale deed to defendant No. 7. It appears that the 7th defendant was subsequently added as defendant in the suit. 1st defendant had purchased the suit houses for a valuable consideration. He also stated that the house bearing No. 22-7-148 had been sold by him through a registered sale deed to defendant No. 7. It appears that the 7th defendant was subsequently added as defendant in the suit. ( 4 ) 7th defendant also filed a written statement contending that the suit house which was got by him was not a wakf property and his vendor-1st defendant got a sale deed from Dargai Begum which was not result of fraud or undue influence. Dargai Begum was rightful owner of house bearing No. 22-7-148. He further submitted that 1st defendant purchased the suit house bearing No. 22-7-148 from Dargai Begum through a registered sale deed dt. 19. 12. 1963 and the defendant No. 7 purchased it from 1st defendant through a registered sale deed dt. 26. 12. 1968. ( 5 ) ON the basis of these pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues, (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a declaration that the houses bearing Municipal Nos. 22-7-148, 22-7-151 and 22-7-157 situated at Pathergatti, Hyderabad as wakf properties under the Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb Pathergatti, Hyderabad? (2) Whether the plaint schedule properties are part and parcel of the wakf properties under the Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb, Pathergatti, Hyderabad? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the vacant possession of suit schedule properties? (4) Whether the sale deeds dt. 19. 12. 1963 as mentioned in para 8 of the plaint are null and void? (5) Whether the second plaintiff is the wakf of the Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb Pathergatti, Hyderabad? (6) Who is in possession of suit schedule properties? (7) To what relief? ( 6 ) THE plaintiff examined PWs 1 and 2 and exhibited Exs. A1 to A4. On behalf of 1st defendant no evidence was adduced and on behalf of 7th defendant he examined himself as a witness and exhibited Exs. B1 to B49. Now in the light of these pleadings, the only question which has to be decided by this Court is whether the suit properties are wakf properties or not. There is no dispute with regard to Ashoorkhana that it was wakf property, but whether the suit houses adjacent to Ashoorkhana are part of wakf property or not is in dispute. In the light of these contentions, let us see the oral and documentary evidence. There is no dispute with regard to Ashoorkhana that it was wakf property, but whether the suit houses adjacent to Ashoorkhana are part of wakf property or not is in dispute. In the light of these contentions, let us see the oral and documentary evidence. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the son of 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff, according to him, was Mutawalli of Ashoorkhana named as Nisar Mubarak Kalam and the suit property was registered as wakf property. He exhibited Ex. A1 as the original Muntakab dt. 8. 2. 1955. In column No. 3 of Ex. A1 the registered number of the suit wakf property is noted. In col. No. 11 the name of 2nd plaintiff is noted as Mutawalli. Ex. A1-Munthakab was published in Government Gazette dt. 17. 2. 1955 and a printed copy of the Gazette publication was exhibited as Ex. A2. He knew Darshai Begum who was the step mother of 2nd plaintiff. She was a resident of Mandi Ashoor Khan, but she had no title or right in the suit property. The witness testified to what had been stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint. Originally the suit had been filed in the year 1969 against defendants 1 to 6 before the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad being O. S. No. 1288 of 1969 which was decreed. Ex. A4 was the certified copy of the judgment dt. 29. 4. 1975 passed in O. S. No. 1288 of 1969. Defendants 1 to 6 filed an appeal being A. S. No. 156 of 1975 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 7th defendant filed an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that he had purchased a house from 1st defendant. The appellate Court remanded the case back to the trial Court as it found that the trial Court had not the jurisdiction, therefore the suit was re-tried by the Court of VI-Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 was working as Inspector and Auditor in the Wakf Board. He knew Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb situated at Pathergatti, Hyderabad. The said Ashoorkhana and its properties including the houses were registered as wakf properties. He exhibited Ex. A3 as the notification calling for objections. This notification was published in Government Gazette dt. 28. 6. 1952. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 was working as Inspector and Auditor in the Wakf Board. He knew Ashoorkhana Nal Saheb situated at Pathergatti, Hyderabad. The said Ashoorkhana and its properties including the houses were registered as wakf properties. He exhibited Ex. A3 as the notification calling for objections. This notification was published in Government Gazette dt. 28. 6. 1952. Boundaries of Ashoorkhana are also shown in the said notification. Ex. A3 was the office record. After the period during which objections could be filed was over, the property mentioned in Ex. A3 was registered as wakf property. Thereafter a Muntakab was prepared and published. Ex. A2 was the publication of Muntakab. Ex. A2 contains full particulars which gives boundaries, house numbers etc. Ex. A2 was also part of office record. Ex. A1 was the original Munthakab and it contains house numbers and boundaries of Ashoorkhana. The name of Muthavalli was noted as Jahangiri Begum in Ex. A1. It was also mentioned in Ex. A1 that the property is wakf property since a long time. The plan attached to Ex. A1 was not traceable in the office and it had been sent to the office of Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Wakf section. On cross-examination by 7th defendant he stated that he had not gone through whole of the record which was prepared before Ex. A3 was issued because the record had gone to Government. He could not give the reference number under which the record had been sent to Government. He did not know as to when it was sent to Government. The entire file relating to File No. 1737/2 of 1950 Fasli was sent to Government. He could not say without seeing the record as to whether the suit property was registered as wakf property on any application by anybody or on a motion by 1st plaintiff. He did not know whether the properties of Nale Mubarak were under the supervision of Court from 1336 Fasli to 1966 and what were the properties which were under the supervision of the Court. ( 9 ) 7th defendant examined himself as a witness who stated that he had purchased the house bearing No. 22-7-148 from 1st defendant and 1st defendant purchased it from Darsai Begum. He could not produce the original sale deeds relating to the said house as they were mortgaged with Central Bank, Hyderabad. He exhibited Ex. ( 9 ) 7th defendant examined himself as a witness who stated that he had purchased the house bearing No. 22-7-148 from 1st defendant and 1st defendant purchased it from Darsai Begum. He could not produce the original sale deeds relating to the said house as they were mortgaged with Central Bank, Hyderabad. He exhibited Ex. B3 as the registration extracts of sale deed dt. 19. 12. 1963 executed by Darsai Begum in favour of 1st defendant. He also applied for registration extracts of sale deed dt. 26. 12. 1968, but the registration officer had not issued the extracts on the ground that the concerned record had been burnt on 3. 6. 1969. He however issued a plan which was Ex. B4. He could not read and write. Before he purchased the property he had shown the documents to one Rasheed Sab who was an advocate. After purchasing the property it was mutated in his name. Thereafter he was paying water and electricity charges. Exs. B14 to B49 were the demand bills. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know who was the Mutawalli of Ashoorkhana. There were several houses in the premises of Ashoorkhana including the house which was occupied by him. It was not true that Ashoorkhana was an endowed property. He did not know as to what properties were endowed under Ashoorkhana. He did not know the 2nd plaintiff. He knew P. W. 1 who was the son of previous Mutawalli. His vendor informed him that the house belonged to one Darsai Begum. He did not enquire as to how Darsai Begum became the owner of house, whether she became owner by inheritance or by purchase. Apart from the documents filed by him, no other document was handed over to him by his vendor. ( 10 ) IN the light of this evidence, Exs. A1 to A3 are important. Ex. A1 was issued in the year 1952. It shows that Ashoorkhana was for the purpose of performing rituals. It also shows the houses for the purpose of residence of Mutawalli. Ex. A2 is a Gazette Notification which gave the statement of endowment under Sl. No. 1191. It shows, ( 11 ) INSTITUTION Ashurkhana, Nalsaheb Kalam at Patterghatti with houses Nakarkana as per plan. Approximate value is Rs. 75,000/ -. Munl. No. I C-7-157 to I C 7-147 boundaries. East: Dewri Nawab Salarjung. Ex. A2 is a Gazette Notification which gave the statement of endowment under Sl. No. 1191. It shows, ( 11 ) INSTITUTION Ashurkhana, Nalsaheb Kalam at Patterghatti with houses Nakarkana as per plan. Approximate value is Rs. 75,000/ -. Munl. No. I C-7-157 to I C 7-147 boundaries. East: Dewri Nawab Salarjung. West: Dewri Nawab Salarjung and public road; north: Dewri Nawab Salarjung; south: Dewri Nawab Mukaramuddowla;. . . . . Trustee: - Jahangir Begum Saheba daughter of Mir Gulzar Ali, ex-Mutawalli, residing in the ashurkhana. Remarks: - According to the Endowment rules sanctioned by the Government of Hyderabad the above mentioned property is registered in the endowments register. File No. 1737/2 of 1350 F. Issue No. 1894, dated 8. 2. 1955 this conclusively shows that the property had been declared to be wakf property along with Ashoorkhana in 1955. There were 11 houses which were from I C-7-147 to I C-7-157. It was also argued at the bar that since the State of Hyderabad was an independent state and was governed by a Nizam, and for dispensation of religious institutions viz. , temples, moques, ashoorkhanas, choultaries, Samasthanamas etc. were under the control of Ummore-e-Mazhabi Department (Religious Department ). The Nizam of Hyderabad framed endowment regulations and they were published in Gazette in 1940. All the religious institutions were under the control of Director of Endowments. After the independence the Nizam was appointed as Raj Parmukh when the State of Hyderabad became part of the Union of India. The parliament enacted Wakf Act 29 of 1954 to protect, supervise, manage and administer all the wakf properties and it received the assent of the President of India on 21. 5. 1954 which was published in the Gazette on 24. 5. 1954. The Nizam being the Raj Parmukh exercising the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Wakf Act constituted a Wakf Board viz. , Muslim Wakf Board, Hyderabad by G. O. Ms. No. 91, dt. 13. 1. 1955. The Wakf Board started its work from 15. 2. 1955 consisting of 11 members. A notification was issued and published in the Hyderabad Government Gazette dt. 20. 1. 1955. Thereafter the notifications were issued to which a reference has been given hereinabove. On 1. 11. , Muslim Wakf Board, Hyderabad by G. O. Ms. No. 91, dt. 13. 1. 1955. The Wakf Board started its work from 15. 2. 1955 consisting of 11 members. A notification was issued and published in the Hyderabad Government Gazette dt. 20. 1. 1955. Thereafter the notifications were issued to which a reference has been given hereinabove. On 1. 11. 1956 the State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence and by virtue of State reorganization the Government of India issued orders dissolving the Hyderabad Muslim Wakf Board with effect from 4. 3. 1961. This background is given to show that the notification which was issued in the year 1955 was issued by virtue of the Wakf Act 29 of 1954, promulgated on 24. 5. 1954. It may not be out of place to note that the defendants 1 to 6 have not filed any appeal, it is only 7th defendant who has filed this appeal. Section 9 of the Wakf Act, 1954 lays down, 9. Incorporation, - (1) With effect from such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, there shall be established a Board of Wakfs under such name as may be specified in the notification. ( 12 ) WE have gone through the notification which was issued under Section 9 of the Wakfs Act, 1954 on 13. 1. 1955 whereby the Rajpramukh in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act constituted a Muslim Wakfs Board, Hyderabad and in terms of Section 9 of the Act constituted a Muslim Wakfs Board, Hyderabad and in terms of Section 10 of the Act he nominated 11 members. Under Section 4 of the Wakf Act survey could be conducted with regard to wakf properties. Under Section 5 publication of list of wakfs in Official Gazette could be made and after the list was issued under Section 5, disputes whether a particular property was wakf property or not could be entertained by a civil Court in a civil suit under Section 6. Later by an amendment in the year 1984, under Section 6-A a Tribunal was created with regard to resolution of disputes. There is no dispute in the present case that a notification was issued in terms of Section 5 to which a reference has been given by us hereinabove. Later by an amendment in the year 1984, under Section 6-A a Tribunal was created with regard to resolution of disputes. There is no dispute in the present case that a notification was issued in terms of Section 5 to which a reference has been given by us hereinabove. Under sub-section (4) of Section 6 and under sub-section (4) of Section 6-A a list of wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 would be final and conclusive unless modified in pursuance of a decision of a Civil Court/tribunal (after amendment ). Section 6 also provided that no suit would be entertained by a Civil Court after one year of the publication of list of wakfs under Section 5. This conclusively proves that Ex. A2-notification was published under Section 5 on 8. 2. 1955. This notification has not been challenged at any point of time and it was conclusive proof of the property being wakf property. The questions which have been framed for consideration by the appellant and argued before this Court are, (1) Whether the plaintiff Wakf Board has discharged the burden to establish that the suit schedule property is a wakf property? (2) Whether the plaintiff Wakf Board has proved who, when and how the Wakf was created in respect of the suit schedule property? (3) Whether the Wakf Board plaintiff has followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act to establish that the suit property is a wakf property? (4) When the Commissioner of Survey as required under Section 4 was appointed and when the Survey Commissioner of Wakf submitted his report under Section 5 and when it was published in the Gazette? (5) Whether the properties mentioned under Exs. A2 and A3 are one and the same? (6) Whether the property mentioned in Ex. B2 is also included in Exs. A1 and A2? ( 13 ) WE do not think that the first question needs any further investigation in view of the notification of 1955 which has become final. Coming to other questions, Ex. A2 and A3 are one and the same? (6) Whether the property mentioned in Ex. B2 is also included in Exs. A1 and A2? ( 13 ) WE do not think that the first question needs any further investigation in view of the notification of 1955 which has become final. Coming to other questions, Ex. A3 was a notification which was issued in the year 1952 i. e. , before the Act came into force to which a reference has been given by us hereinabove and even at that time the suit property was considered to be wakf property and the Government ordered that the institutions mentioned in that notification needed registration and in terms of Section 6 of the Endowment Regulation objections were invited. The property mentioned was Ashoor Khana Nal Saheb at Pathargatti and its boundaries were given. Therefore we have no doubt in our mind that the property was always considered to be wakf property. Since the notification under Section 5 had been issued in the year 1955, it was not necessary to go into the question whether this notification had been issued after following the procedure as laid down by the Act because any grievance on that account could have been challenged by the defendants within one year of issuance of notification under Section 5. ( 14 ) NOW coming to the judgments on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, one of them being judgment reported in Salah Vs. Husain (AIR 1955 Hyderabad 229 ). In para-12 the Court stated. 12. The other question that was canvassed before us was that there was no completion of the wakf. It was urged that the evidence showed that the wakif never intended to create a wakf and the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the wakif conclusively indicate that there was no intention to create a wakf. The circumstances, which according to the appellant lead to this inference have been already mentioned in the course of this judgment. ( 15 ) IT is contended that where from the conduct of the wakif it is clear that he did not divest himself of the ownership of the property, the wakf cannot be regarded as having been completed. In its connection we might refer to the decision of the Privy Council in the case Mohd. Ali Mohd. Khan Vs. Mt. ( 15 ) IT is contended that where from the conduct of the wakif it is clear that he did not divest himself of the ownership of the property, the wakf cannot be regarded as having been completed. In its connection we might refer to the decision of the Privy Council in the case Mohd. Ali Mohd. Khan Vs. Mt. Bismillah Begam (AIR 1930 PC 255 (G)) where their Lordships observed; ( 16 ) ON a careful consideration of the whole evidence their Lordships have come to the conclusion that defendant No. 2 executed the deed of wakf but without any intention of divesting himself of his ownership of the property in the case before us there was no mutation of names, there was no registration of the wakf in the Ecclesiastical Department as required by law, no distribution of the income as long as the wakif was alive and though the wakif purported to call himself thereafter as a mutawalli, he never maintained any accounts relating to the wakf properties. These, in our opinion, conclusively go to show that there was no intention on the part of the executant to create a wakf. ( 17 ) WE hold that having regard to the terms of the two deeds there was no completed wakf, and that even if the documents be regarded as a completed wakf, the wakf is invalid for the reason that it lacks the essential ingredient of a wakf, viz. , a substantial bounty for charity or for the poor. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the original side of the High Court set aside and the plaintiffs suit dismissed with costs. This judgment is not relevant for the simple fact that the question involved before that Court at that time was whether a particular property was wakf property or not, which is not the controversy before us in view of what has been stated hereinabove and in view of the notification having been issued in the year 1955. ( 18 ) ANOTHER judgment on which reliance is placed is Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari (1956 Supreme Court 713 (S) AIR ). This case was also in a different fact situation. ( 18 ) ANOTHER judgment on which reliance is placed is Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari (1956 Supreme Court 713 (S) AIR ). This case was also in a different fact situation. This judgment shows that the plaintiffs case was that the lands and other properties that surround the masjid and adjacent to it were part of the masjid property, whereas the defendant claimed to be his personal property. Therefore the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the property was wakf property and not the defendants own property. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was a Mutwalli of the property as well as of the masjid. The Court proceeded on the premise that the burden lied on the plaintiffs as the defendant was admittedly in possession, therefore the plaintiffs had to prove that the defendant was enjoying the possession on behalf of the plaintiffs as a Mutawalli and not as an owner. Then the Court discussed the pleadings and also the evidence and some earlier suits including arbitration. This judgment did not lay down any law as is evident from the judgment itself. In para-57 it said, 57. After a careful survey of the evidence, we have reached the following conclusions, (1) that the old mosque as it stood in 1880 is proved to be wakf property but that nothing beyond the building and the site on which it stood is shown to have been wakf at that date; (2) that this property has been added to from time to time and the whole is now separately demarcated and that the additions and accretions from a composite and separate entity as shown in the plaintiffs map. This is the area marked ABCD in that map; (3) that this area is used by the public for religious purposes along with the old mosque and as the area has been made into a separately demarcated compact unit for a single purpose, namely collective and individual worship in the mosque, it must be regarded as one unit and be treated as such. The whole is accordingly now wakf. The whole is accordingly now wakf. (4) That the accretions were made by Gulab Shah and the defendant both of whom claimed to be Mutwallis of the mosque; (5) That this area also includes the shops and chabutra shown to the west of the mosque in the plaint map on a triangular piece of land; (6) That the urinal, water pipe and bathroom were constructed for the use of the worshippers and so must be regarded as an adjunct of the wakf; (7) That the rest of the property in suit is not shown to be wakf or accretions to the wakf estate. It is separately demarcated and severable from the portion ABCD and the shops to the west of the mosque; (8) That the worshippers at the mosque have a right of way as an easement over the plot A-1 to obtain ingress to an egress from the mosque, and also a right of way to the urinals, the water tap and the bathroom. Thus on the basis of evidence the Court came to the conclusion that part of the property was wakf property and part of the property was not wakf property. This judgment will not help the appellant in any case because it is by operation of law the present suit property had been declared to be wakf property and it has conclusively been proved to be wakf property. ( 19 ) ANOTHER judgment relied on by the appellant is A. P. Wakf Board Vs. Somaiah (1980 (1) ALT 477 ). In this case also import of Section 5 of the Act was not considered. We are not sure whether any notification had been issued in terms of Section 5 of the Act, in that Case. Therefore this judgment is also not relevant for the purpose of the present case. Another judgment on which reliance has been placed is B. Gowra Redy (died) and others Vs. Govt, of A. P. , Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others ( 2002 (3) ALT 439 ). This was a writ petition filed by the interested persons challenging the notification issued under Section 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954. They termed it as illegal and not binding on them. One of the objections which was taken in the writ petition was that the notification could have been challenged by way of a suit within a year. They termed it as illegal and not binding on them. One of the objections which was taken in the writ petition was that the notification could have been challenged by way of a suit within a year. The High Court, while referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Punjab Wakf Board V. Gram Panchayat (2000) 2 SCC 121 ), quoted paras-20 and 33 of the said judgment and then came to the conclusions to which it has come. But the issue before the learned single Judge of this Court was whether a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act was legal or illegal. This was not an issue before the trial Court in the present case. We have carved out the issues hereinabove. Since a notification had been issued under Section 5 of the Act, the plaintiffs had discharged the burden of showing that it was a wakf property. If it had been contested by the defendants, it was for them to prove that the property was not wakf property and it was their own property. Only 7th defendant has filed appeal, other defendants have not filed appeal. 7th defendants evidence we have discussed in detail. He stated that he purchased the house bearing No. 22-7-148 from 1st defendant and he categorically stated that he did not know the basis of title of Darasi Begum who had sold it to 1st defendant. Therefore this judgment would not come to the rescue of the appellant. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in T. N. Wakf Board Vs. Hathija Ammal ( (2001) 8 Supreme Cases 528 ). This was a case where the Wakf Board filed a suit without following a procedure as contemplated under Sections 4, 5, or 27 of the Act. Sections 4, 5 and 6 we have already mentioned hereinabove. Section 27 lays down,27. Decision if a property is wakf property,- (1) The Board may it self collect information regarding any property which it has reason to believe to be wakf property and if any question arises whether a particular property is wakf property or not or whether a wakf is a Sunni wakf or a Shia wakf, it may, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, decide the question. (2) The decision of the Board on any question under sub-section (1) shall, unless revoked or modified by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, be final. (3) Where the Board has any reason to believe that any property of any trust or society registered in pursuance of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (2 of 1882) or under the Societies Registration Act, 186 (21 of 1860) or under any other Act, is wakf property, the Board may notwithstanding anything contained in such Act, hold an inquiry in regard to such property and, if after such inquiry, the Board is satisfied that such property is wakf property, call upon the trust or society, as the case may be, either to register such property under this Act as wakf property or show cause why such property should not be so registered; provided that in all such cases, notice of the action proposed to be taken under this sub-section shall be given to the authority by whom the trust or society had been registered. (4) The Board shall, after duly considering such cause as may be shown in pursuance of notice issued under sub-section (3), pass such orders as it may think fit and the order so made by the Board, shall be final, unless it is revoked or modified by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. ( 21 ) SINCE there was no notification that the property in question was a declared wakf property, therefore the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the suit could not have been filed. Paras 6 and 7 of the judgment are reproduced below,6. In the event, any property has been omitted by inadvertence or otherwise, then it is for the Wakf Board to take action as provided under Section 27 of the Act. If the Wakf Board has reason to believe that a particular property is a wakf property then it can itself collect information and if any question arises whether a particular property is a wakf property or not, it may, after making such enquiry as it may deem fit decide the question and such decision of the Wakf Board shall be final unless revoked or modified by a civil Court. Such action has not been taken by the Wakf Board in this case. 7. Such action has not been taken by the Wakf Board in this case. 7. The High Court is justified in holding that the Wakf Board had no right to institute suit for declaration that any property is a wakf property as the scheme of the Act clearly indicates. The High Court further found that as far as the appellant is concerned with regard to title of any property, it must comply with the requirements of Sections 4, 5 and 6 or Section 27 of the Act, which means that if any property is not published as wakf property as required under Section 5 (2) of the Act or the Board has not invoked the special power under Section 27, the Wakf Board cannot file a suit for declaration and possession and on that basis upheld the order made by the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to para-5 of the judgment which is reproduced below,5. Let us now examine the provisions of the Act. Under Section 5 (2) of the Act, after a property is notified to be wakf property, a determination is made by a civil Court whenever any dispute arises after the notification is published by the Wakf Board as to whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list published is a wakf property or not. Section 6 further provides that the civil Court shall not entertain any such suit after the expiry of one year after the date of publication of the list by the Board. Such a suit cannot be at the instance of the Wakf Board. Again, the Board may itself collect information regarding any property as provided under Section 27 of the Act and decide whether a particular property is wakf property or not and that decision is final unless it is revoked or modified by a civil Court. He lays emphasis on the words, Section 6 further provides that the civil Court shall not entertain any such suit after the expiry of one year after the date of publication of the list by the Board. Such a suit cannot be at the instance of the Wakf Board. He lays emphasis on the words, Section 6 further provides that the civil Court shall not entertain any such suit after the expiry of one year after the date of publication of the list by the Board. Such a suit cannot be at the instance of the Wakf Board. Again, the Board may itself collect information regarding any property as provided under Section 27 of the Act Therefore he contends that the Wakf Board in no case could file a civil suit. We have gone through the whole of the Act. Once the property is declared to be wakf property under the provisions of the Act, if this property is illegally occupied by somebody and if Wakf Board is not entitled to file a suit, then there is no other method provided under the Act to evict such an unauthorized occupant. This was not what the Supreme Court intended. In para-8 the Supreme Court clearly laid down that after the Wakf Board takes steps which are required to be taken under Sections 5 (2) or under Section 27 of the Act, then a suit can be filed by a Wakf Board and there is no quarrel with that principle. The Wakf Board cannot file a suit unless the property is declared to be wakf property in accordance with the Act, but when once such a declaration is made whether under Section 5 (2) or 27 of the Act and the property is found to be in unauthorized occupation, then a suit would be maintainable. Therefore this judgment, in our view, in no way helps the appellant. ( 22 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, however, relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sayyed Ali Vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 972 ). In this case property was declared to be wakf property in terms of the Act. In an enquiry for grant of patta under Inams Act Tahsildar gave a finding that the disputed property was no wakf property. The Supreme Court, while considering the power of Tahsildar and examining different provisions of the Act, which we have already referred to hereinabove, held, therefore, any dispute relating to the character of Wakf property is to be decided in the manner provided under the Wakf Act. The Supreme Court, while considering the power of Tahsildar and examining different provisions of the Act, which we have already referred to hereinabove, held, therefore, any dispute relating to the character of Wakf property is to be decided in the manner provided under the Wakf Act. Subject to the result of a civil suit, if filed, the list of wakfs published in the official gazette is final and conclusive. In the present case, the disputed property was shown as Wakf property in the A. P. Official Gazette on 30. 11. 1961 and no suit having been filed challenging the Wakf property, the entries in the official gazette describing the property as wakf became final and conclusive. ( 23 ) THIS observation of the Supreme Court applies on all fours to the present case. Then in para-14 of the judgment the Supreme Court held, 14. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that once patta, under the Inams Act, having been granted in favour of Mokhasadar, it was not open to the High Court to hold that the property was a Wakf property. In other words, the argument seems to proceed on the basis that once patta has been granted under the Inams Act to Mokhasadars, the land has ceased to be a Wakf property. It may be stated that a Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property. We accordingly find no substance in the last argument of learned counsel for the appellant. ( 24 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.