Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet in I.A.No.3 of 2004 in O.S.No.48 of 2001, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet in I.A.No.3 of 2004 in O.S.No.48 of 2001, dismissing the Suit on the ground that the dispute regarding the Suit Property relates to the Wakf Property and finding that only the Wakf Tribunal would have jurisdiction to try the Suit. The Plaintiff – Walajapet Bazaar Mosque represented by its Muthavalli is the Revision Petitioner. 2. O.S.No.48 of 2001:- The Plaintiff Mosque is situated in Walajapet. The Plaintiff Mosque is under the supervisory control of Tamilnadu Wakf Board, Chennai. The Suit Mosque is having its properties and shops on its Southern and Eastern rows facing M.B.T.Road. The Shops and Properties are let out to several Tenants and the Plaintiff Mosque has been collecting the Rent from the aforesaid Tenants, which is utilised to meet the day to day expenses of the Mosque. The First Defendant is one such Tenant in respect of the Property on the Eastern Road bearing Door Nos.28 to 31, Desai Chetty Street, Walajapet. The First Defendant has been storing the firewood and doing the firewood business in a small thatched structure. The First Defendant had also executed an Agreement of Rent in favour of the Plaintiff Mosque on 01.02.1972. Initially, the rent was at Rs.10/- per month, which was gradually increased to Rs.250/- per month and the Tenancy being reckoned according to English Calendar month. With the ulterior motive of grabbing the Suit Property, the First Defendant started evading payment of rent to the Plaintiff’s Mosque. Hence, the Plaintiff’s Mosque has filed the Suit in O.S.No.48 of 2001 for Eviction against the First Defendant and also for recovery of accumulated arrears of rent and damages. 3. Denying the Title of the Plaintiff’s Mosque in the Suit Property, the First Defendant has filed Written Statement contending that the Suit Property originally belonged to Government Natham Poromboke and the Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property for more than 42 years. He had constructed thatched sheds and tiled house in the Suit Property. 3. Denying the Title of the Plaintiff’s Mosque in the Suit Property, the First Defendant has filed Written Statement contending that the Suit Property originally belonged to Government Natham Poromboke and the Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property for more than 42 years. He had constructed thatched sheds and tiled house in the Suit Property. The First Defendant has been carrying on firewood business in the two sheds and in the vacant premises appurtenant thereto. The First Defendant has been using the Tiled House in the Suit Property as resting house. Recognising the Defendant’s possession and enjoyment in the Suit Property, Government had also collected "B-Memo” charges from the First Defendant. Since the Defendant has been in long possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property, he has perfected his Title to the Suit Property. In the year 1995, the Plaintiff Mosque has attempted to interfere with the Defendant’s possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Hence, the First Defendant had earlier filed a Suit and there was previous litigation between the Parties. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the earlier Suit, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit O.S.No.48 of 2001. The Suit Property being a Wakf Property, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit. The Plaintiff Mosque is not entitled to any relief. 4. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed including the one relating to the maintainability of the Suit – "Whether the Suit Schedule Property belongs to the Wakf Board?”. 5. I.A.No.3 of 2004 was filed by the Defendant to decide the issue regarding question of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. 6. The said Application was resisted by the Plaintiff Mosque contending that the District Munsif Court has got the jurisdiction to determine the Suit. In the Counter Statement, it is alleged that the Application has been filed only to delay the trial proceedings. 7. Learned District Munsif found that the Plaintiff Mosque is under the Control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit. It was further held that when there is dispute whether the property is a Wakf Property or Natham Poromboke, that question relating to the Wakf Property has to be determined only by the Wakf Tribunal. It was further held that when there is dispute whether the property is a Wakf Property or Natham Poromboke, that question relating to the Wakf Property has to be determined only by the Wakf Tribunal. Learned District Munsif dismissed the Suit finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 8. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal of the Suit, the Plaintiff Mosque has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the Trial Court erred in saying that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit. Drawing the attention of the Court to the earlier filing of the Suit in Sub-Court, Vellore, which is the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, the Sub-Court, Vellore has returned the Plaint with endorsement that the Suit has to be presented before the appropriate Court, it is contended that the said aspect was not properly appreciated by the lower Court. It is submitted that in any event, the Trial Court erred in not looking into the documents produced onbehalf of the Plaintiff saying that the Suit Property belongs to the Plaintiff Mosque and that the First Defendant has all along being only a Tenant and that he is estopped from denying the Title of the Plaintiff Mosque. It is also submitted that when the Tenancy has been admitted, the Wakf Tribunal would have no jurisdiction or authority to decide the matter between the Landlord and the Tenant and only the Civil Court is competent to determine such matters. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff Mosque has further submitted that in any event, the Court below has grossly erred in dismissing the Suit. 9. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, any question as to whether any property is Wakf Property or not is to be determined only by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that when objections had been raised regarding the Title of the Plaintiff’s Mosque, the Court below had rightly dismissed the Suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is further submitted that as against the Impugned Order of dismissal of the Suit, the Plaintiff Mosque has filed A.S.No.73 of 2004 and in view of the same, the present Revision Petition is not maintainable. 10. It is further submitted that as against the Impugned Order of dismissal of the Suit, the Plaintiff Mosque has filed A.S.No.73 of 2004 and in view of the same, the present Revision Petition is not maintainable. 10. The main point that arises for consideration is whether the lower Court was right in dismissing the Suit on the ground that a dispute has arisen regarding the Suit Property – Whether it is a Wakf Property or not, which could be determined only by the Wakf Tribunal and whether the Impugned Order suffers from manifest error warranting interference. 11. Admittedly, the Plaintiff Mosque is under the Supervisory control of the Tamilnadu Wakf Board, Chennai. The Suit Property and Door Nos.28 to 31, Desai Chetty Street, Walajapet and other properties are said to be under the Management of the Plaintiff’s Mosque. Case of the Plaintiff Mosque is that the Suit Property and other Shop Premises had been let out to various Tenants. The Defendant is Tenant in Municipal Door Nos.28,29,30 and 31 comprised in T.S.No.1087, 1088 and 1089 respectively at Desai Chetty Street, Walajapet Town. The Plaintiff Mosque has produced documents showing that the Plaintiff Mosque is the Owner of the Suit Property. Per contra, the Defendant disputes the right and Title of the Plaintiff Mosque over the Suit Property. According to the Defendant, the Suit Property is the Natham Poromboke – belonging to the Government, which is alleged to be in possession of the Defendant for more than 40 years. In his Written Statement, the Defendant denies the Title of the Plaintiff’s Mosque. Thus the dispute had been raised regarding whether the Suit Property is the Wakf Property belonging to the Plaintiff Mosque or the Suit Property being the Natham Poromboke land and whether the Defendant has perfected his Title by adverse possession. 12. When the dispute is raised regarding subject matter of the Suit, under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Section 85 of the Wakf Act,1995 reads: "BAR OF JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS:- No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal”. 13. Under Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, the Tribunals are constituted. 13. Under Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, the Tribunals are constituted. Only the Wakfs Tribunals would have jurisdiction "to determine any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property”. The words "any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf Property” under Section 85 are wide enough to take in within its sweep not only matters which are specifically conferred on the Tribunal by the various provisions of the Act, but also any dispute, question or any other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property since those powers have also been conferred on the Tribunal by the Wakf Act itself. On examining the scheme of the Act and various provisions it is seen that the intention of the Legislature is to resolve all disputes by one machinery and forum provided in the Act itself, that is, the Wakf Tribunal and not by the Civil Courts. A combined reading of Sections 85 and 83(1) of the Wakf Act shows that when the dispute is raised as to whether the Property is a Wakf Property or not, the dispute is to be determined only by the Wakf Tribunal. 14. The present Suit is one for Eviction against the First Defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent. A combined reading of Section 83(1) read with Section 85 of the Wakf Act, clearly shows that when the dispute is raised regarding the nature of the property, it would only be appropriate for the Civil Court to refer the matter to the Wakf Tribunal and only the Wakf Tribunal could determine in respect of any disputed question or other matter relating to the Wakf Property. In dismissing the Suit, the lower Court ought to have either returned the Plaint to be presented before the Wakf Tribunal / Principal Sub-Court, Vellore or the learned District Munsif should have transmitted the case to the Wakf Tribunal through proper channel through Principal District Judge, Vellore. Without adopting either of the course, dismissal of the Suit is erroneous causing injustice to the Plaintiff Mosque. 15. It is relevant to note that earlier, the same Suit has been filed in the Principal Sub-Court, Vellore, which is constituted as the Wakf Tribunal for Vellore District. The Plaint was returned to be presented before the proper Court. Without adopting either of the course, dismissal of the Suit is erroneous causing injustice to the Plaintiff Mosque. 15. It is relevant to note that earlier, the same Suit has been filed in the Principal Sub-Court, Vellore, which is constituted as the Wakf Tribunal for Vellore District. The Plaint was returned to be presented before the proper Court. The endorsement of return by the Principal Sub-Court, Vellore reads "...Plaint may be represented to proper court having jurisdiction since the dispute under the Wakf Act alone can be entertain within Court....” Thereafter, the Plaint was presented before the District Munsif Court, Walajapet. In the District Munsif Court, Walajapet, objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the Suit. Later, the case was called in the open Court and the maintainability of the Suit was explained placing reliance upon the decision reported in II 1999 C.L.T. 470. After satisfaction as to the maintainability of the Suit, the Suit was ordered to be admitted. When that being so, while determining the preliminary issue when the Court has found that the Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute relating to the subject matter of the Suit, the Court ought to have returned the plaint. Instead of returning the Plaint or transferring the Plaint to the Wakf Tribunal, the lower Court has committed a serious error in non-suiting the Plaintiff Mosque. 16. As against the order passed in determining the preliminary issue, only an Appeal lies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Mosque has filed A.S.No.73 of 2004 before the Sub-Court, Ranipet. Since regular appeal had been filed onbehalf of the First Respondent / First Defendant, it is contended that the Plaintiff Mosque is to be directed to approach the Appellate Court and seek its remedy in the regular appeal. 17. In the normal circumstances, this Court would have only directed the Plaintiff Mosque to approach the Appellate Court wherein the Appeal in A.S.No.73 of 2004 has been preferred challenging the Judgment of dismissal of the Suit. But, this Court finds that in dismissing the Plaint, there is an error apparent on the face of record resulting in manifest injustice. The return of the Plaint by Principal Sub-Court, Vellore / Wakf Tribunal for Vellore District is also to be kept in view. But, this Court finds that in dismissing the Plaint, there is an error apparent on the face of record resulting in manifest injustice. The return of the Plaint by Principal Sub-Court, Vellore / Wakf Tribunal for Vellore District is also to be kept in view. While hearing the Appeal, if the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet concurs with the finding of the District Munsif, then, the Plaint may have to be returned to be presented before the Wakf Tribunal / Principal Sub-Court, Vellore or transferred to Wakf Tribunal / Principal Sub-Court, Vellore. Perhaps, it may amount to one subordinate Court sitting over the order of other co-ordinal Court / Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore which has earlier refused to receive the Plaint. 18. Under such circumstances, the High Court exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to necessarily interfere by issuing suitable directions. The Plaint in O.S.No.48 of 2001 is ordered to be transferred to the Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore / Wakf Tribunal for the District of Vellore. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Walajapet dated 26.03.2004 in I.A.No.3 of 2004 in O.S.No.48 of 2001 is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. The connected C.M.P.No.7308 of 2004 is closed. 20. Learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet is directed to transfer O.S.No.48 of 2001 (A.S.No.73 of 2004) to the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore / Wakf Tribunal (through Principal District Judge, Vellore). Pursuant to this order, A.S.No.73 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Ranipet is ordered to be rounded off. The evidence already recorded by the District Munsif should form part of the record and the Trial is to be continued thereon. Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore / Wakf Tribunal is directed to take the Suit on its file and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law.