JUDGMENT :-The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2003 passed in O.S.No.6 of 1994 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. (a) The appellants are Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 in the suit O.S. No.6 of 1994 filed by the first respondent herein, the fifth defendant is the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, who is the second respondent herein and the seventh defendant died, who is the third respondent herein, and his legal representatives were not brought on record in the suit. The suit was originally filed by M/s. Subedar Saheb Choultry Trust Board represented by its President- Md. Raheem Khan and thereafter the name of Md. Raheem Khan was deleted and the proposed President Md. Kareem Khan was added as per orders in I.A. No.27 of 2002 dated 4-2-2002 in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration of the title deeds obtained by the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 registered on 12-6-1945 in respect of the plaint schedule property as void, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff and to set aside the same and to grant permanent injunction against them and to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month towards damages from 12-8-1995 till the date of delivery of the suit schedule property and to pay costs. The said suit was decreed against the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 by judgment and decree dated 31-10-2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree this appeal has been filed. (b) The petitioners in all the civil revision petitions are the tenants, who suffered common eviction order dated 27 -2-1998 in the eviction petitions filed by the landlords in R.C.C. Nos.19, 31, 25, 27, 21, 36, 23, 34, 19, 33, 35, 55, 32, 26, 62, and 24 of 1986 respectively under provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Aggrieved by the same they preferred respective appeals in R.C.A.Nos.10, 15, 13,22,8,21,16,12,7,17,18,9, 44,23,36 and 11 of 1998 before the Appellate Authority (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry and the same were dismissed by common judgment dated 3-4-2002. Assailing the said judgment the tenants filed the present revisions. Aggrieved by the same they preferred respective appeals in R.C.A.Nos.10, 15, 13,22,8,21,16,12,7,17,18,9, 44,23,36 and 11 of 1998 before the Appellate Authority (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry and the same were dismissed by common judgment dated 3-4-2002. Assailing the said judgment the tenants filed the present revisions. Prior to the aforesaid eviction petitions the tenants filed R.C.C.Nos.54, 58 to 73 and 84 of 1985 under Section 9 of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court and the same were dismissed by the aforesaid common order dated 27-2-1998 and the appeals preferred by them being R.C.A.Nos.35, 32, 26, 42, 43, 36, 41,30,40,37,28, 34, 27, 31, 39, 29, 33 and 38 of 1998,respectively were also dismissed by the aforesaid common judgment dated 3-4-2002, against which the tenants did not prefer any revisions. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submit that the fate of the civil revision petitions filed under Section 22 of the Act depends upon the declaration of title of the landlords to be decided in the appeal suit. (c) Admittedly, the vendors of the landlords inducted the petitioners as tenants and there was no dispute with regard to the relationship of the landlords and the tenants within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. All the eviction petitions filed by the landlords on the grounds of denial of title without any bona fides on the part of the tenants, for wilful default in payment of rents and that the said premises in occupation of the tenants are required for the personal use and occupation to commence business by the landlords were allowed as there was no dispute with regard to the ownership and the applications under Section 9 of the Act filed by the tenants seeking permission to deposit the rents in the Court were dismissed by common order dated 27-2-1998. All the aforesaid grounds on which eviction petitions were allowed, were confirmed by the appellate authority holding that the denial of title by the tenants is not bona fide; that the tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rents and that the said premises is bonafidely required by the landlords for commencing business and that the tenants are not entitled to seek permission to deposit the rents before the Rent Controller and the Subedar Saheb Choultry Trust Committee is not entitled to seek relief under Section 26 of the Act for grant of exemption as the said Choultry failed to establish that the property is a Wakf property. Thus, it is stated that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, there is limited scope to interfere with the said concurrent findings. However, the relief granted in favour of the landlords depends upon the result of the appeal suit. A.S. No. 1194 of 2004: The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 2. The suit O.S. No.6 of 1994 was filed by M/s. Subedar Saheb Choultry represented by its President Md. Rahman Khan on 17-1-1994 seeking a decree to set aside the registered sale deeds dated 12-6-1995 obtained by the Defendants 1 to 4 from their executants by playing fraud and ignoring the title to the property and conferred title to those persons who got no right, title or disposition to the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is M/s. Subedar Saheb Choultry popularly know as "Zai Hind Buildings" bearing Door No.10-15-33. There after in the place of Md. Rahman Khan, "Managing Trustee Md. Kareem Khan" was added by order dated 1-2-2000 in I.A. No.1138 of 2000. Thereafter, the cause title of the plaint was amended as M/s. Subedar Saheb Choultry Trust Board, represented by its President Md. Kareem Khan, S/o. Alam Khan (Proposed President) was added as successor of the plaintiff as per the orders in I.A. No.27 of 2002 dated 4-2-2002. The Defendants 6 and 7 were also added as per the orders in I.A. No.62 of 2001dated 1-3-2001. Kareem Khan, S/o. Alam Khan (Proposed President) was added as successor of the plaintiff as per the orders in I.A. No.27 of 2002 dated 4-2-2002. The Defendants 6 and 7 were also added as per the orders in I.A. No.62 of 2001dated 1-3-2001. The relief· portion was also amended as per the orders in I.A. No.265 of 2003 dated 20-3-2003 to set aside the sale deeds obtained by Defendants 6 and 7 and to declare the sale deeds dated 30-4-1995 registered on 12-6-1985 in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 as void, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff and to grant permanent injunction against them. (a) It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a Charitable Trust created by late Subedar Saheb philanthropist, and dedicated the plaint schedule property for the purpose of funding the educational institutions and to utilize the income derived from the portion of the plaint schedule property to fund the educational institutions. Pursuant to the Charitable Trust created by the founder, the Mutawalli was appointed and he was looking after the affairs of the Subedar Saheb Choultry (hereinafter called the schedule property). Later disputes arose between the Mutawalli and the Trust Committee Members thereby the suit has been filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and after contest the suit was decreed holding that the choultry is a charitable institution and directed a scheme for management of the trust by appointing two members from among the residents of the local Muslim people and also a family member of the Mutawalli as hereditary trustee. After the appointment of the scheme the members of the institution ran smoothly for several decades and in the year 1985 the defendants obtained void registered sale deeds from the hereditary trustees and the lessees of the said property conveying fake title to the defendants having intended to press for into service by getting the proceedings of 18 eviction petitions filed against the tenants under RCC Nos.20 to 36 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller, Rajahmundry. As per the scheme got appointed by the directions of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, the hereditary trustees acting in collusion with the other members of the Charitable Trust have mismanaged the affairs of the schedule property, consequently no action has been initiated by the members got appointed as per the scheme. Therefore, the plaintiff was kept in darkness about the filing of the suit on 31-12-1993, the plaintiff was got appointed and elected unanimously by the Trust Committee Members of the schedule property took over the charge of the same and on investigation and enquiry it came into light that the charitable trust created by the Subedar Saheb has been sold out at nominal price to the defendants even though the said documents does not create any title to the defendants. The plaint schedule property is a charitable trust as declared by the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and it does not permit either hereditary trustees or charitable Trust Board members to dispose the said trust as they wish. Hence, the suit has been filed to set aside the registered sale deeds obtained by the defendants on 12-6-1985 as void documents on the action of the fraud played by them against the trust committee members and the entire Muslim people. (b) It is further stated that the whereabouts of the executants of the said registered sale deeds are not known to the plaintiff and the plaintiff very much doubts about the existence of the executants. The plaintiff opines that the executants are anonymous persons, who are not in existence at any point of time; therefore, the executants of the sale deeds have not been added as parties to the suit. Moreover, the plaintiff claims no relief against them, as the relief is to set aside the registered sale deeds. It is stated that the aforesaid judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 has been carried in appeal in O.S. No.19 of 1920 on the file of the District Judge, West Godavari at Rajahmundry, which has been dismissed, as such no declaration is necessary insofar as the relief of declaration that the plaint schedule property is charitable institution is concerned. The cause of action arose for the suit on 12-6-1985 when the executants have executed the registered sale deeds and on 31-12-1993 when the plaintiff was elected as president of the schedule property. The cause of action arose for the suit on 12-6-1985 when the executants have executed the registered sale deeds and on 31-12-1993 when the plaintiff was elected as president of the schedule property. The suit was valued for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and fixed the Court fee of Rs.15/- was paid as the relief claimed is with regard to the Wakf property as per the orders of the Government in G.O. Ms.No.1313 dated 16-10-1969. 3. The Defendants 1 to 4 filed written statement on 20-10-1995 stating that M/s. Subedar Saheb Choultry was never in existence and Md. Rahman Khan was not at all appointed as President of the Choultry on 31-12-1993. The judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 has been superseded and set aside by virtue of various decrees in O.S. No.24 of 1963 on the file of the District Court, Rajahmundry filed against the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board questioning the notification of the Wakf Board dated 10-4-1962 and the said suit filed by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin for declaration of the plaint schedule property as not Wakf property under Section 6 of the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954, was decreed on 26-9-1963 and the suit filed by the Wakf Board in O.S. No.36 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry against Maqdoom Mohiuddin, the legal representative of Baba Mohiuddin and against the tenants, who are in possession of the schedule property claiming that it is a Wakf property, was dismissed for default on 1-3-1975 after framing the issues and thus the said judgment has become final. It is stated that Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin leased the schedule property as their own property by registered lease deed dated 17 -9-1945 for a period of 22 years and since then the tenants were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently due to some differences among the owners and legal representatives of Baba Mohiuddin, the suit O.S. No.96 of 1968 was filed for partition of the schedule property on the file of the District Court against Maqdoom Mohiuddin and all the lessees and while the said suit was pending, the Wakf Board filed an application in I.A.No.738 of 1971 to implead itself as a party to the suit contending that the plaint schedule property is not a private property but it is a Wakf property. The said petition was dismissed after contest on 14-2-1972 holding that the said property is not a Wakf property and the decree that was already passed in O.S. No.17 of 1919 became inoperative, ineffective and superseded by virtue of judgment in O.S. No.24 of 1963. The Wakf Board filed a revision in CRP No.726 of 1972 against the said order and the revision was dismissed. Subsequently the suit O.S. No.96 of 1968 on the file of the District Court was transferred to Sub-Court, Rajahmundry and numbered as O.S. No.23 of 1970 and among several issues framed one of the issues was whether the plaint schedule property is a Wakf property or not. In view of the contentions raised by the tenants in possession of the schedule property and on the said issue, it was held that the said property is not a Wakf property but it is a private property belonging to the aforesaid two Muslims and ultimately granted a decree for partition by judgment dated 11-7-1973. The said judgment has become final wherein the claim of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board that it is a Wakf property was rejected. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot rely on the judgment in O.S.No.17 of 1919 as it has already become inoperative and ineffective. More so, the trust created by the Muslims is already covered by the Wakf Act and no private individual can file a suit claiming to be a trustee or president or in any other capacity. The judgments that are binding on the Wakf Board are equally binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot institute a suit based on the said judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919. It is stated that there was no committee at all and they never enjoyed the property at any point of time and the plaintiff committee is created for the purpose of filing the suit alone at the instance of the various tenants of the schedule property just to resist the pending rent control petitions. Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. (a) It is stated that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit against the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. (a) It is stated that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit against the defendants. After passing the Wakf Act 1954 the question of any charitable institution for Muslims does not at all exist and that Act applies to all Wakf whether created before or after commencement of the Act by virtue of Section 2 of the Act. It is further stated that the defendants purchased the schedule property through different sale deeds dated 30-4-1985 and registered on 12-6-1985 from the original owners of the schedule property viz., Maqdoom Mohiuddin and legal representatives of other co-owner and the sale deeds are fully supported by consideration and they are true and valid documents. The defendants were also paying the municipal taxes to the building from 1985 onwards. After obtaining sale deeds, the defendants filed several R.C.Cs against the tenants for eviction and the tenants also filed several R.C.Cs without any bona fides on their part seeking permission to deposit the rent under Section 9 of the Act by setting up title in the Wakf Board. The tenants only have set up the plaintiff to file the present suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to file the present suit to set aside the registered sale deeds, as the suit claim to set aside the sale deeds itself is not maintainable because the plaintiff is not a party to those sale deeds. In the absence of filing a suit for declaration declaring that the plaint schedule property belongs to the trust a simple suit for declaration of title is null and void and is not maintainable. The defendants are the absolute owners having lawful title and their predecessors in title have been enjoying the property as their own since more than 10 decades to the knowledge of the entire public and therefore, the defendants and their predecessors in right and title perfected their title by adverse possession and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the said ground also. The suit filed by the plaintiff to set aside the documents of title of the defendants is also barred by time. The suit filed by the plaintiff to set aside the documents of title of the defendants is also barred by time. (b) The contesting defendants further stated that the plaintiff cannot claim the relief of declaration regarding the sale deeds of the defendants executed in the year 1985 and the relief of declaration prayed for by way of amendment in the year 2003 is barred by time and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for such relief. The plaintiff without seeking delivery of possession of the schedule property cannot seek for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from exercising their rights over the plaint schedule property from collecting the rents. The relief of injunction virtually amounts to granting delivery of possession and therefore, such relief cannot be granted in the teeth of the admission that the defendants are presently enjoying the schedule property through tenants under permissive occupants. In any view of the matter the persons who are in occupation of the property are also proper and necessary to the suit. 4. The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board the fifth defendant filed a written statement stating that the schedule property as shown is incomplete because the boundaries on the West and North are not shown and the boundaries shown on the East and South are rather vague. The schedule property is bounded on the East Main Bazar Road T.S. No.399, West T.S. No.392/2 under the scheme decree, North - part of T.S. No.394 and part of burial ground and South - Vemurivari Street - T.S. No.400. The plaint schedule property - Subedar Saheb Choultry is now called "JAIHIND BUILDINGS". After passing of the Wakf Act 1954, the Commissioner of Wakf visited the suit schedule property and prepared the Report No.38 dated 16-3-1956 stating that one Subedar Major Shaik Ibrahim created a Sunni Wakf of the schedule property to the use as the rest place for Muslim travellers and the Muslims are the beneficiaries. Two persons by name Janab Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin are shown as Mutawallis. Two persons by name Janab Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin are shown as Mutawallis. The said Subedar Major Shaik Ibrahim died in the year 1866 and thereafter one Munshi Shaik Imam Saheb was the father of the aforesaid two Mutawallis assumed possession of the suit schedule property and managed it for his lifetime and during his management he constructed some godowns on some portion of the choultry yard and the income from there was used for repairs and upkeep of the suit schedule property. The said Shaik Imam died 8 years prior to 1919 and the management passed on to his widow Ameerunnisa Begum Saheba who began to use the suit schedule property for herself and misappropriated the income thereof. In the said suit O.S. No.17 of 1919 Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin, children of Ameerunnisa Begum and Shaik Imam, were impleaded as Defendants 2 and 3, being minors under the guardianship of their mother - Ameerunnisa Begum. (a) The said Ameerunnisa Begum was dealing with the Wakf property improperly and misappropriated the income thereof. The association of Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam, Rajahmundry filed suit in O.S. No.17 of 1919 on the file of temporary Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry against the said Ameerunnisa Begum and her two minor sons - Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin for settlement of the scheme for the management of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed on 30-10-1999 declaring the suit schedule property as Mohammedan Charitable Endowment i.e., Subedar Saheb Choultry and framed the scheme decree on 11-12-1919 as follows: 1. The "Subedar Chattram" shall be managed by a committee of three trustees, two of them shall be appointed by the Court and one to be selected by the Court from the family of the founder of the trust, Subedar Mohammad Ibrahim Saheb Bahadur. One of the trustees shall be the President of the Committee. The Trustees appointed by the Court shall hold the office for 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment. 2. The names of the first trustees are as follows: (1) Baba Mohiuddin Saheb represented by guarding and mother Ameerunnisa Begum Saheba. (2) Khan Saheb Khaja Ahamdullah Khan Saheb, Government Khaji, Rajahmundry. (3) Mahammad Yakoob Saheb, Sub-Registrar, Rajahmundry. 3. All vacancies occurring on the committee shall be reported to the provincial Court of original jurisdiction empowered to fill them up according to the above provision. 4. (2) Khan Saheb Khaja Ahamdullah Khan Saheb, Government Khaji, Rajahmundry. (3) Mahammad Yakoob Saheb, Sub-Registrar, Rajahmundry. 3. All vacancies occurring on the committee shall be reported to the provincial Court of original jurisdiction empowered to fill them up according to the above provision. 4. The Committee of trustees shall meet every month, or as often as possible, as it may be necessary, and shall keep a record of their proceedings in a book kept for that purpose. 5. The President of the trustees shall preside over the meetings and all cases of difference of opinion shall be decided by the vote of majority. 6. The presiding trustee shall see to the carrying out of the resolutions of the committee and be responsible for their due and effective working. 7. The committee shall keep clear and full accounts of all income and expenditure of the institution; a copy of the said accounts for each year shall be filed in the Court aforesaid during the first week of January of the next succeeding year. 8. The committee shall rent out four godowns only two on each side of the main gate open to the high road for the purpose of meeting the expense of the repairs and upkeep of the choultry and shall utilize all the remaining godowns for the use of travellers. 9. The committee shall make the necessary repairs and alternations for the better convenience and accommodation of the travellers so far as funds permit. 10. The committee shall employ a servant and a sweeper for the choultry and for their salaries a sum of Rs.15/- a month is allotted and the trustees shall obtain the sanction of the Court for all extra expenditure. 11. A travellers book shall be kept at the choultry in which the names, occupation and abode of the travellers shall be entered. 12. The members of the family of the founder of the trust shall have fee access to the graveyard in the choultry compound. They will be at liberty to enclose the graveyard and keep it in their exclusive control. 13. All surplus funds of the choultry shall be invested in the Post Office Savings Bank or in other authorized securities in the name of the President of the Trust Board as such. 14. They will be at liberty to enclose the graveyard and keep it in their exclusive control. 13. All surplus funds of the choultry shall be invested in the Post Office Savings Bank or in other authorized securities in the name of the President of the Trust Board as such. 14. The Court reserves to itself the power to modify the scheme whenever necessary and the parties to the suit or any person interested may apply to the Court for a modification of the scheme. (b) It is stated that the scheme decree was complied smoothly for over decades but the trouble started only in 1985, when the children of the above said Baba Mohiuddin viz., Shaik Ahmed and Shaik Ilyas entered into void agreements of sale with Defendants 1 to 4 and conveyed the fake title under four registered sale deeds and the defendants filed eviction cases, which are pending as R.C.Cs.20 to 36 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry. (c) It is further stated that the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board has jurisdiction over the plaint schedule property. The defendants fraudulently in collusion with the unauthorized persons who had no right to alienate the Wakf property without the consent of the Wakf Board obtain sale deeds and even the Wakf Board has no right to sell the said property except under special circumstances as provided under Section 36-B read with Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Rules. Therefore, the alienations of Wakf property between the parties are not binding on the Wakf Board. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State is vested in the Wakf Board under Section 15 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and it is the duty of the Wakf Board to exercise its powers under the Act to ensure that the Wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied with the object for the purpose for which such Wakfs are created. The alienations are liable to set aside and the Wakf Board is entitled to take possession and management of the suit schedule property. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for setting aside the sale deeds of Defendants 1 to 4.? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. The alienations are liable to set aside and the Wakf Board is entitled to take possession and management of the suit schedule property. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for setting aside the sale deeds of Defendants 1 to 4.? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry is inoperative and ineffective? 4. Whether the sale in favour of the Defendants 6 and 7 is liable to be set aside? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? 6. Whether the relief of declaration is barred by time? 7. Whether the Court fee paid is not correct? 8. Whether the persons in occupation were also proper and necessary parties to the suit? P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 and Ex. X1 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 6. The following questions that arise for consideration: (1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable? (2) Whether the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 on the file of the Subordinate Judge is inoperative, ineffective and superseded by virtue of subsequent orders of the Courts? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to set aside the registered sale deeds dated 12-6-1985 obtained by the defendants from their executants on the ground of fraud and that the executants have no right, title or authority to dispose the said property and without impleading the vendors of the defendants? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, damages as well as permanent injunction without any claim of relief for recovery of possession? (5) Whether the executants of the registered sale deeds dated 12-6-1985 and the persons in possession of the schedule property are proper and necessary parties to the relief granted in the suit? 7. I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to re-appreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence to decide the said questions. (a) One Mr. (5) Whether the executants of the registered sale deeds dated 12-6-1985 and the persons in possession of the schedule property are proper and necessary parties to the relief granted in the suit? 7. I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to re-appreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence to decide the said questions. (a) One Mr. Alam Khan alleging to be the managing trustee of the plaintiff choultry, examined as P.W.1, stated that Md. Rahman Khan was the trustee at the time of filing the suit and after filing the suit he is one of the trustee of the plaintiff choultry. Subedar Saheb dedicated the plaint schedule property for the benefit of the travellers who visit Rajahmundry and the income derived from the plaint schedule property has to be utilized for the management of the choultry and for rendering education to poor Muslim students. Originally the plaint schedule property was under the management of Shaik Imam Saheb as per the wish of the founder of the choultry. When Imam Saheb was Mutawalli, he did not manage the properties properly, hence the Muslim Community of Rajahmundry Town filed a suit in O.S. No.17 of 1919, which was decreed declaring the plaint schedule property as charitable institution and also framed a scheme for management of the choultry and appointed a committee as per the scheme. Exs.A.1 and A2 are the order and decree in E.P. No.104 of 1999 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 dated 12-10-1999 appointing him as managing trustee of the choultry. Exs.A3 to A7 are the certified copies of the plaint, judgment, decree, schedule of the plaint attached to the decree· and scheme formulated in O.S. No.17 of 1919. EX.A8 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No.138 of 1920 confirming the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919. EX.A11 is the certified copy of the Gazette Notification dated 19-4-1962 relating to the plaint schedule property as Wakf property. EX.A12 is the certified copy of the notice dated 15-7-1985 issued by the Wakf Board to the tenants. Exs.A13 to A17 are the certified copies of the sale deeds in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7. EX.A12 is the certified copy of the notice dated 15-7-1985 issued by the Wakf Board to the tenants. Exs.A13 to A17 are the certified copies of the sale deeds in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7. The vendors in the sale deeds are by name Maqdoom Mohiuddin, who was the third defendant in the suit O.S. No.17 of 1919, was a minor by the date of filing the said suit and others. Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin were never appointed as trustees of the choultry. The plaint schedule property has the name board Subedar Saheb Choultry and the value of the said property is nearly two crore rupees. The sale deeds in favour of the defendants are not valid and liable to be set aside. Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin or their descendants did not have any right to alienate the said property and they were not hereditary trustees for the plaint schedule property. He is claiming damages at the rate of Rs.l,500/- per month. The trustees appointed in O.S. No.17 of 1919 or the previous Mutawalli or the legal heirs of the Mutawalli have no right to sell the property. In the cross-examination he has stated that the old building of the choultry is till existing without improvement and that thereabout 14 to 15 shop rooms in the ground floor and 4 or 5 rooms in the first floor. He became a member of the Trust Board in the year 1993 for the first time. He did not know if any records were maintained for the trust prior to 1993. He did not file any documents showing the management of the trust from 1919 to 1993. Md. Rahman Khan, who filed the suit, originally is his predecessor. It is true that prior to 1986 there was no move for formation of the trust by the Court by virtue of decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919. The Board came into existence for the first time under Ex.A9 order dated 15-1-1986 in I.A. No.1903 of 1985 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and he did not know as to why there was no move for formation of the Trust Board prior to 1986. He did not know if the Trust Board had taken possession of the suit schedule property through Court. He did not know if the Trust Board had taken possession of the suit schedule property through Court. By the date of filing of the lit O.S. No.17 of 1919 the sons of Imam Saheb were minors and he knew about the dismissal of the petition filed by the Trust Board for delivery of the property as obstructed by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin. The Trust Board as not allowed to take possession of the Plaint schedule property after the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919. The suggestion that le Kaki people had constructed new building with ground floor and first floor in the suit premises after removing the old building subsequent to 1945 was denied. He suggestion that the said Maqdoom Mohiuddin and Baba Mohiuddin leased out the said premises for 22 years in 1945 to construct the new building was denied. He did not know how Baba Mohiuddin nd Maqdoom Mohiuddin were related to Subedar Saheb the founder of the choultry and who gave management to them. He did to know if Kaki people were collecting rents after 1945. The suit property was notified in the Gazette as Wakf property in le year 1962 in the list of properties covered by EX.A11. He did not know whether the and Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin succeeded in the suit filed by rem in O.S. No.24 of 1963 on the file of the District Court, Rajahmundry. The said suit property came within the purview of file Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board Act. He lid not know whether the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board filed O.S. No.36, of 1972 in respect of the suit property and that the suit vas dismissed. The legal heirs of Baba Mohiuddin filed a suit against Maqdoom Mohiuddin in O.S. No.23 of 1970 for partition and he did not know whether the suit was decreed. He did not know whether he Wakf Board filed a petition for impleading it in the suit and whether that petition vas dismissed and confirmed by the High Court on the ground that the property was private property. He cannot produce any record showing the realization of any income from the suit property prior to 1985. He did not know whether he Wakf Board filed a petition for impleading it in the suit and whether that petition vas dismissed and confirmed by the High Court on the ground that the property was private property. He cannot produce any record showing the realization of any income from the suit property prior to 1985. He did not know about the Rent Control cases filed by the legal heirs of Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin against the Kaki people and the tenants in R.C.C. No.122 of 1974 and he did not know whether both the parties entered into compromise to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants. It is incorrect to state that the suit property did not belong to Subedar Saheb Choultry and that the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 became inoperative and ineffective because of the subsequent orders of the Court. He did not know how the contents of the plaint came to be incorporated in the plaint. Md. Rahman Khan may be able to tell it. It is not true to suggest that the suit property never came into possession of plaintiff choultry. He did not know if the Wakf Board is party to the rent control proceedings. The value of the property is about 11/2 crore. (b) One Mohammad Nasar, resident of Rajahmudnry, examined as P.W.2, stated that he filed a petition in I.A. No. 1903 of 1985 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and he was appointed as one of the trustees by the Court as per the scheme framed in O.S. No. 17 of 1919 along with four others for a period of five years. Subsequently one of the original trustees was the son of the Mutawalli, who was appointed as trustee in the year 1919, did not manage the property as per the scheme. After he was appointed as trustee he issued a notice to the tenants in the plaint schedule property calling upon them to pay the rents and the tenants started depositing the rents into the Court. The trustees were not added as parties in the rent control proceedings. The Wakf Board notified the said property as Wakf property. They defendants issued a public notice to newspaper claiming ownership over plaint schedule property to which the trustees issued a reply notice in newspaper rebutting the public notice issued by the defendants. The trustees were not added as parties in the rent control proceedings. The Wakf Board notified the said property as Wakf property. They defendants issued a public notice to newspaper claiming ownership over plaint schedule property to which the trustees issued a reply notice in newspaper rebutting the public notice issued by the defendants. EX.A18 is the notice got published by them in Samacharam Daily dated 10-2-1986. In the cross-examination he stated that the plaint schedule property is known as Jaihind Building. The plaint schedule property and the burial ground were the properties held by the trust by the time of their appointment as trustees. There was no record of the plaint schedule property showing particulars of the occupants, the amounts received and the amounts spent for the choultry. He could not say how many persons are in occupation of the plaint schedule property. He heard that the defendants purchased the said property before they filed I.A. No.1903 of 1999. There was no record to show that the Trust Board had taken possession of the plaint schedule property in furtherance of the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919. After their appointment as trustees they did not take possession of the plaint schedule property and they had no occasion to manage the plaint schedule property. Only action taken by them was issuing notice to the tenants and they are maintaining the records only after they were appointed as trustees. As per the decision of the Supreme Court related to the scheme, the scheme decree will be everlasting. They have filed a petition to protect the plaint schedule/ property, which belongs to the choultry, though the property was not being treated as trust property. He did not know if the tenants are paying the rent to the Kaki people and he did not make any enquiry as to the rights of the defendants because the sale in their favour is not valid. In Ex.A19 the defendants referred the sale deed under which they purchased the property. They did not file any suit for cancellation of sale deed in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4 during his tenure. He did not know whether Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin filed O.S. No.24 of 1963 and whether it was decreed. In Ex.A19 the defendants referred the sale deed under which they purchased the property. They did not file any suit for cancellation of sale deed in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4 during his tenure. He did not know whether Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin filed O.S. No.24 of 1963 and whether it was decreed. He did not know about the suit filed by Wakf Board in O.S. No.36 of 1972 against Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin and the tenants and whether the suit was dismissed for default. He came to know that the suit in O.S. No.24 of 1963 was decreed ex parte. He did not know about the partition suit in O.S. No.96 of 1968 renumbered as O.S. No.23 of 1970 filed between family members of Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin. There are two Muslim tenants in the suit property. The Trust Board has no record to show the mismanagement or the proceedings issued by the Wakf Board. (c) Mohammad Kareem Khan, examined as P.W.3, stated that he was the President of Subedar Choultry trust and he was appointed as one of the trustees for the plaintiff trust under EX.A2. The previous managing trustee A/am Khan passed away and he was elected by the Trust Board vide EX.A20 resolution dated 13-10-1999. Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin were not re-elected after expiry of the initial term of the office and they never managed the affairs of the plaintiff-trust. The Committee has no power under the scheme to grant permanent lease of the rooms of the plaintiff choultry. The tenants never paid any rents to the Trust Board. The Trust Board filed an execution petition for removal of obstruction and delivery of the rooms to the Trust Board and they have taken symbolical possession of the rooms in the choultry and they have issued notice to the tenants to pay rents by they have not paid rents. In the cross-examination he stated that the Trust Board did not have any record showing the management of the plaintiff choultry and he could not say if the Trust Board took possession of the choultry after the scheme declared in O.S. No.17 of 1919. He did not know if the petition filed by the Trust Board for removal of obstruction and delivery of rooms was dismissed when Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin resisted delivery. He did not know if the petition filed by the Trust Board for removal of obstruction and delivery of rooms was dismissed when Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin resisted delivery. The plaintiff trust did not pay any property tax to the Municipality. He did not know who is shown as owner of the choultry in municipal records. He did not know when the ground floor and first floor of the choultry building were constructed. He did not know if Kaki people made construction of the ground floor and first floor of building in pursuance of a lease of the year 1945 executed by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin. He did not know whether the Trust Board ever collected rents prior to the sale deeds in favour of the defendants. He filed applications in rent control appeals to implead the Trust Board as party to the appeals. The defendants are not parties to the EP filed by board. He did not know if the Defendants 6 and 7 were impleaded and given up in the EP filed by the board. There was no appointment of the Trust Board of trustees after the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and before 1985. The suggestion that the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 never came into effect and that the decree was superseded and become invalid by virtue of subsequent orders and decrees in O.S.No.24 of 1963 and O.S. No.36 of 1972 and O.S. No.23 of 1970 was denied. He further admitted that only after 1985 the public aware of the scheme decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and the Trust Board did not take any action till E.P. No.200 of 1999 was filed for taking delivery of the plaint schedule building. (d) PW4, Town Surveyor in Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, stated that the property stood in the name of Baba Mohiuddin and Ex.X1 is the true copy of the town survey register to T.S. No.393 of Rajahmundry. The site in T.S. No.393 was described as a private property in Ex.X1. (e) Md. Abdul Rasheed, one of the tenants in the plaint schedule property, examined as P.W.5, stated that he was doing optical business and running a shop in the name of Andhra Optical and Co., since last 30 years and that it is a trust property to his knowledge. (e) Md. Abdul Rasheed, one of the tenants in the plaint schedule property, examined as P.W.5, stated that he was doing optical business and running a shop in the name of Andhra Optical and Co., since last 30 years and that it is a trust property to his knowledge. A Receiver was appointed to collect the rents and he also paid to the Receiver. The property belonged to Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin but it is not their own property and they were only managing the property on behalf of the Subedar Saheb Choultry Trust. Subsequently they sold the property to one Chin/ala Pydiraju and others, who are the defendants. They have issued a notice stating that they have purchased the property and demanded the tenants to vacate. About 15 years back a committee was appointed by the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry to manage the plaint schedule property and the Wakf Board also issued a notice demanding them to pay the rents. As both of them were claiming the property and asked to pay the rent, the tenants filed R.C.C. seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court. In O.S. No.17 of 1919 it was decided that it was a trust property and as per the scheme decree after every five years a committee has to be appointed by the Court and after the committee was appointed, they never paid any rents to the committee. It is stated that in the rent control proceedings they have taken a plea that the plaint schedule property belongs to Subedar Saheb Choultry. In the cross-examination, he stated that he took the property on lease through Court Receiver and he used to collect the rents but he failed to submit the particulars of the suit. He admitted that he never paid rents to the Wakf Board or to the plaintiff-choultry except paying rents to the Kaki people. He did not know in which suit the alleged Receiver was appointed and whether the plaintiff was a party or not. There were 18 tenants in the suit schedule property. The tenants paid rents to the Kaki people and he is one among them. He is one of the tenants in the schedule property and also having interest to see that as it is the trust property it has to continue to be the same. There were 18 tenants in the suit schedule property. The tenants paid rents to the Kaki people and he is one among them. He is one of the tenants in the schedule property and also having interest to see that as it is the trust property it has to continue to be the same. He filed R.C.C. No.54 of 1985 seeking permission of the Court to deposit rents into the Court but he never tried to pay rents to the Wakf Board or Trust Board and used to pay rents to the Kaki people only. The landlord filed eviction petition against them and the tenants filed petitions seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court, the R.C.Cs filed by the tenants were dismissed and the R.C.Cs filed by the landlords were allowed and the appeals filed by them were also dismissed against which they preferred revision before this Court. The suggestion that he is only responsible for filing the suit by the plaintiff to avoid eviction was denied. 8. The third defendant, examined as D.W.1 stated that Defendants 1 and 2 are his younger brothers and the fourth defendant is his father, who died. The suit schedule building is called as 'Jaihind Building' situated at Main Road, Rajahmundry. They purchased the said building from Maqdoom Mohiuddin and Baba Mohiuddin and their legal heirs under four registered sale deeds - Exs.A13 to A16. At the time of the execution of sale deeds, Kaki Satyanarayanamurthy and his brothers also joined in the execution of the sale deeds because they were lessees at that time. Prior to their purchase the predecessors in title filed cases against Kaki Satyanarayana and others and also against sub-tenants seeking eviction and the matter went upto High Court, wherein it was settled between their vendors and Kaki people. As per the said settlement, their vendors have to pay some amount to Kaki people out of the sale consideration. Therefore, the Kaki people also joined in execution of the sale deeds. At the time of their purchase of the building, the sub-tenant viz. P.W.5 and other sub-tenants filed R.C.Cs seeking permission to deposit the rents under Section 9 of the Act. The R.C.Cs filed by the landlords seeking eviction were allowed and the R.C.Cs filed by the sub-tenants were dismissed. At the time of their purchase of the building, the sub-tenant viz. P.W.5 and other sub-tenants filed R.C.Cs seeking permission to deposit the rents under Section 9 of the Act. The R.C.Cs filed by the landlords seeking eviction were allowed and the R.C.Cs filed by the sub-tenants were dismissed. It is stated that by the time they purchased the suit property there was no claim by anybody with regard to the plaint schedule property either by the Wakf Board or by the plaintiff. At the instance of the sub-tenants only the plaintiff initiated action. The plaintiff never took possession of the plaint schedule property at any time pursuant to the decree in Exs.A4 and A5 and they were never implemented. The suit filed by their vendors in O.S. No.24 of 1963 was decreed on 26-9-1963. Exs.B2 and B3 are the certified copies of decree and judgment in O.S. No.24 of 1963 and the suit filed by the' Wakf Board in O.S.No.36 of 1972 to set aside the decree in O.S. No.24 of 1963 was dismissed under Ex.B4 dated 11-3-1975. The Kaki people obtained a lease for a period of 22 years with a permission to demolish the whole building and construct a new building as per EX.B5 lease deed dated 17-9-1945. Their vendors also filed a suit in O.S. No.23 of 1970 for partition wherein Kaki people were shown as parties and the suit was decreed under EX.B6 dated 11-7-1973. At no point of time the plaintiff took possession of the schedule property and they never collected rents from the tenants and they have no manner of right over the 'schedule property to seek cancellation of their sale deeds in respect of the plaint schedule property. The sub-tenants of the Kaki people under the leadership of P.W.5 got filed the suit filed through plaintiff because of their tenancy cases. In the cross-examination, the suggestions made to him that the plaint' schedule property was a Wakf property dedicated by Subedar Saheb and he died in 1866; thereafter the trustee Munshi Shaik Imam Saheb managed the property and thereafter his wife Ameerunnisa Begum managed the property and due to the mismanagement of Ameerunnisa Begum the Muslim Community filed the suit O.S. No.17 of 1919 were all denied. It is admitted that he came to know the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 holding the said property as Wakf property and stated that the Wakf Board appointed no Wakf Committee in 1954 and they did not know about the long history of the particulars of the previous suits. Therefore he denied all the suggestions. It is stated that he has issued a paper publication under EX.A19 stating that the said property is a private but not a Wakf property for which the committee issued another paper publication under EX.A18 stating that the said property is not private property but Wakf property. The suggestion that his vendors suppressed the scheme decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was denied. (a) The sixth defendant, examined as D.W.2, stated that he is one of the occupants of the shop, which was purchased by him along with his brother's son viz., Satyanarayana in 1985. It is stated that his brother was doing business in the same shop, which was taken on lease from Kaki people. Prior to his purchase they used to pay rents to the Kaki people. The building belonged to Baba Mohiuddin and they never managed the building or repaired the same at any time prior to their purchase in 1985. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not know about the previous decrees and judgments and denied all the suggestions made by the plaintiff and it is stated that the sale deeds are true value and binding on the plaintiff. (b) The seventh defendant, examined as D.W.3, stated that he purchased part of the property along with the sixth defendant 'jointly and prior to the purchase they are the tenants' of Kaki, people. The property was originally let 'out ' by the legal representatives of Baba Mohiuddili and Maqdoom Mohiuddin to the Kaki people for 22 years with a condition to construct the building and enjoy the same. After 22 years they have to give back possession to Baba Mohiuddin and others and the suits among Kaki people and Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin and their legal representatives were compromised .in 1984. The Kaki people and the original owners have jointly executed the sale deeds in their favour in the year 1985. He too denied all the meticulous suggestions about the previous history of the cases. 9. The Kaki people and the original owners have jointly executed the sale deeds in their favour in the year 1985. He too denied all the meticulous suggestions about the previous history of the cases. 9. One Shaik Noor Saheb - working as Inspector, Auditors of Wakf for East Godavari District, examined as D.WA, on behalf of the 5th defendant - A.P. Wakf Board, stated that the plaint schedule property is a Wakf property. Originally it belonged to Subedar Major Shaik Ibrahim, which was meant for the shelter of travellers i.e., for public purposes. After his death there was a dispute regarding the aid property and his wife Ameerunnisa Begum managed the said property. Because of her mismanagement of the property the members of Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam filed suit in O.S. No.17 of 1999 before the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry, which was decreed and a scheme was decree was passed. As per the scheme decree one family member of the Ameerunnisa Begum has to be appointed as a hereditary trustee and two local persons as members of the committee, which was also confirmed in the appeal in O.S. No.138 of 1920. The said scheme decree was implemented and the committees were being appointed for management of the schedule property and till today the said scheme decree was followed. At present, one Kareem Khan is the President of the plaintiff choultry. The said property was shown as Wakf property as per the report of the Commissioner under Ex.B7 dated 23-3-1956. As per the scheme decree the Court has to appoint the committees and in the absence of scheme decree a committee will be appointed directly by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. The sale made by the trustees without the consent of the Wakf Board are binding on the Wakf Board. The legal representatives of Baba Mohiuddin - Shaik Ahamad and Shaik Ilyas - have got no right to effect sale of the plaint schedule property. In the cross-examination he admitted that as per the scheme decree the committee appointed in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was a three member committee and by that time Baba Mohiuddin was a minor and as such as guardian to him, Ameerunnisa Begum was appointed as hereditary trustee. After five years period, the hereditary trustees were not reappointed. In the cross-examination he admitted that as per the scheme decree the committee appointed in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was a three member committee and by that time Baba Mohiuddin was a minor and as such as guardian to him, Ameerunnisa Begum was appointed as hereditary trustee. After five years period, the hereditary trustees were not reappointed. The hereditary trustees did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the scheme decree and they have never raised objection to the report of the Commissioner appointed in 1956 claiming that it is a private property. Basing on the Commissioner's report the schedule property was included in the Gazette publication as Wakf property and the hereditary trustee did not take any permission from the Court or the Wakf Board to sell the Wakf property. He stated that he was not aware of Exs.B2 to B4 proceedings and he had no record to show that as per the scheme decree the Committee appointed by the Court took possession of the property and managed the same. After the appointment of the Trust Committee in 1919 the second committee was appointed only in 1986. As per the scheme decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 the committee has to be appointed for every five years and· his record did not disclose whether there was any committee from 1954 to 1986. Prior to the appointment of the committee in 1986 the defendants purchased the said property in 1985. He had no knowledge about the filing of suit in O.S. No.24 of 1963 by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin on the file of the District Court, Rajahmundry seeking declaration that the schedule property is not a Wakf property but it is their private property. He had no knowledge about the filing of the suit in O.S. No.36 of 1972 by the Wakf Board to set aside the decree in O.S. No.24 of 1963 and the suit was dismissed. As per the records no action had been taken by the Wakf Board directly by filing a suit or any other proceedings to take possession of the schedule property or it's management except contesting the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is stated that the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board would take action against the hereditary trustee regarding the schedule property. 10. It is stated that the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board would take action against the hereditary trustee regarding the schedule property. 10. The undisputed facts are that three Muslims of Rajahmundry filed O.S. No.17 of 1919 on the file of the temporary Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry against Ameerunnisa Begum and her two sons Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin were minors stating that the Subedar Saheb Choultry belongs to charitable institution seeking appointment of the trustees for the management thereof after removing the defendants therein and to direct them to render accounts of their past management and to settle the scheme for the management and the suit was decreed declaring the plaint schedule property as Mohammedan Charitable Endowment called as Subedar Saheb Choultry and as per the scheme decree, for management of the trust, two new trustees are from among the Muslim residents of Rajahmudnry in addition to one member of the defendants family as hereditary trustee and the management of the trust of the said property will be in three trustees as per the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1919 as evident from Exs.A3 to AS. The plaintiffs therein were the members of Mohammedan Association known as Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam. It was also held that the plaint schedule property therein was dedicated to public use and was used as a public resort and was constituted Mohammedan Charitable Trust. With regard to the issues whether the said Ameerunnisa Begum was holding the said property in their own right as private owners and whether Munshi Shaik Imam Saheb, husband of Ameerunnisa Begum, has acquired title to the property by adverse possession and enjoyment for over the statutory period it was held that the first defendant herself got into the possession of the property as heir of her husband and the commencement of her possession is also within 12 years of the suit. Hence, her possession cannot also be regarded to be adverse to the trust so as to bar the plaintiff's suit by limitation and accordingly, held that Shaik Imam held possession of the property as a trustee subsequent to the death of the founder Shaik Ibrahim until 1908 and later on neither he nor his widow could have acquired the title to the property by adverse possession. The other claim for render of accounts was negated. 11. The other claim for render of accounts was negated. 11. After passing the decree on 30-10-1919 under Ex.A7 the first trustees were appointed on 11-12-1919 as follows: (1) Baba Mohiuddin (second defendant) by guardian and mother Ameerunnisa Begum Saheba. (2) Khan Saheb Khaja Ahmadullah Khan Saheb, Government Khaji, Rajahmundry. (3) Mahammad Yakoob Saheb, Sub-Registrar, Rajahmundry. The committee of the trust shall appoint a President. The President of the Committee shall preside over the meetings and the presiding trustee shall carry out the resolutions of the committee and the committee shall keep clear accounts of all the expenditure of the institution and shall file accounts of each year before the Court during the first week of January of the next succeeding year. The Committee shall rent four godowns only two on each side of the main gate, which open to the high road for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the repairs and upkeep of the choultry and shall utilize all the remaining godowns for the use of travellers. The committee shall make the necessary repairs and alterations for the better convenience and accommodation of the travellers. The committee shall employ a servant and a sweeper for the choultry and a sum of Rs.15/- per month shall be paid to them and for extra expenditure they shall take the sanction from the Court. A travellers' book shah be kept at the choultry in which the names, occupation and abode of the travellers shah be entered. The members of the family of the founder of the trust shah have free access to the graveyard in the choultry compound and they will be at liberty to enclose the graveyard and keep it in their exclusive control. All surplus funds of the choultry shah be invested in the Post Office Savings Bank or in other authorized securities in the name of the President of the Trust Board as such. The Court reserves to itself the power to modify the scheme whenever necessary and the parties to the suit or any person interested may apply to the Court for a modification of the scheme. 12. It is also not in dispute that the said judgment and scheme decree was confirmed in O.S. No.138 of 1920 by the District Judge, Godavari at Rajahmundry. 12. It is also not in dispute that the said judgment and scheme decree was confirmed in O.S. No.138 of 1920 by the District Judge, Godavari at Rajahmundry. With regard to adverse possession it was held that he first defendant's husband died only in 1909 and the suit was filed in 1919 and the defendants never enjoyed the possession adversely to the interest of the trust for more than 12 years and therefore, they have not acquired title by way of adverse possession. 13. One Mohammad Nasar Saheb and Abdul Raheem filed an application in I.A.No.1903 of 1985 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the first time after the decree was passed on 30-10-1919 against one Shaik Eliyas and Mohammad Ahamad to appoint them as members of the Trust Committee and one of the descendants of the founder family, for the property and better management of the trust property. The first respondent therein remained ex parte and the relief against the second respondent was given up since he was reported to have died and the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry by order dated 15-1-1986 after considering certain objections from third parties, which were held as not material for the purpose of constituting the committee, held that at present none of the heirs of the hereditary trustees are coming forward for management or evincing interest for the constitution of the committee, as such no useful purpose would be served by appointing any of the heirs of the hereditary trustee as member of the committee and it is desirable to appoint trustees from the local Muslims of Rajahmundry and it is also desirable to enlarge the members of the trustees as five. Accordingly, certain applications to appoint them as members of the committee have been considered and Mohammad Nasar Ahamad, Sheik Mohiddin, Sheik Ismail, Imtiaz Ahmed Qureishi and Khaja Mohammad Hussain were appointed as trustees to the Subedar Saheb Choultry for managing it. The said trustees should elect one trustee as President within one month from the date of the said order and the committee with President so constituted shall invoke the provisions of the Wakf Act an take necessary guidance from the Wakf Authorities if necessary. The rules and procedure for conducting the meetings would be the same as that of any general laws and meetings that governs the procedure. The rules and procedure for conducting the meetings would be the same as that of any general laws and meetings that governs the procedure. After the formation of the committee with the President, the committee may publish it in any of the local newspapers for the notice of all the general public. 14. After the said order dated 15-1-1986 other applications in I.A. No.1800 of 1992 and I.A. No.37 of 1993 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 were filed on the file of the Subordinate judge, Rajahmundry by two set of petitioners numbering ten seeking their appointment as members of the Trust· Committee for managing Subedar Saheb Choultry and the learned Judge by common order dated 30-8-1993 allowed the applications by appointing Alam Khan, Mohammad Baba, Mohammad Rahman Khan, Syed Ahmad and S.K Meeran as members of the Trust Committee. However, nothing has been discussed about the earlier orders and what happened to the earlier committee appointed pursuant to the order dated 15-1-1986 in I.A. No.1903 of 1985. 15. Thereafter, the Subedar Saheb Choultry represented by its President Janab Alam Khan filed E.P. No.104 of 1999 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry against Shaik Eliyas and another for appointment of five trustees among the seventeen persons by drawing chits and the Court after drawing the chi~ by order dated 12-10-1999 appointed, Sale Mohammed alias Baba, S.A. Kharim, Mohammad Usman Sah Quadri, Md. Kharim Khan and Md. Alam Khan as trustees to manage the affairs of Subedar Saheb Choultry and that the term of the committee shall be for a period of five years from the date of the order and the committee shall discharge their functions in accordance with the terms of the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and the committee shall administer the property in accordance with the scheme. Though the second Trust Committee was appointed in 1986 after the fist committee in 1919, admittedly even the second committee took no action till O.S.No.6 of 1994 was filed. Admittedly there are no records or any evidence on record to show that any trust, Trust Board or Wakf Board managed the said property from 1919 till date of the filing of the suit O.S. No.6 of 1994. 16. Admittedly there are no records or any evidence on record to show that any trust, Trust Board or Wakf Board managed the said property from 1919 till date of the filing of the suit O.S. No.6 of 1994. 16. It is also not in dispute that EX.B5 registered Sale Deed Document No.2570 of 1945 was executed on 17-9-1945 by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin describing themselves as landlords of the ~aid premises in favour of Kaki Satyanarayana and others subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein leasing out the said premises for a period of 22 years. It is also not in dispute that Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin filed suit O.S. No.24 of 1963 on the file of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry against Andhra Pradesh Muslim Wakf Board for declaration that the plaint schedule property is not a Wakf property under Section 6 of the Muslim Wakf Act of XXIX of 1954 but it is a private property. After service of notice the Wakf Board remained ex parte and accordingly the suit was decreed holding that the said plaint schedule property is not a public Wakf property but it is a private property by judgment and decree dated 24-9-1963 along with costs of Rs.658.86 ps to be paid by the Wakf Board to the plaintiffs. (a) The aforesaid suit was filed questioning the Gazette Notification dated 10-4-1962 wherein the plaint schedule property was shown in the list of Wakfs contending that no survey number and no boundaries were given therein and that the said property belongs to them and their family graveyard is situated therein and that their father never dedicated the same as choultry that after the death of their father their mother never treated the said property as Wakf property; there was no enquiry whatsoever by the Wakf Board and no notice was given by the Board and the decision given relating to the said property in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was never given effect to even otherwise they have been in possession for more than 40 years in their own right and adversely to the alleged decree holders. The defendants chose to remain ex parte. The defendants chose to remain ex parte. After examining the first plaintiff as P.W.1 and after relying on the sale deed Ex.A1 dated 8-9-1985 in which their father purchased the said property and during the lifetime of their father, thereafter their mother and later they have been paying house taxes and Exs.A2 to A6 are the tax receipts relating to the years 1921 to 1963. Originally it was a tiled building and in 1945 they demolished the building and put up the present upstairs building and it is not a Wakf property. On the said contention of the plaintiff that the said notification is not binding on him as it is a private property and that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the building through their tenants, the suit was decreed with costs by judgment and decree dated 26-9-1963 under Ex.B3 and under Ex.B2 costs of Rs.658.76 ps were directed to be paid by the defendant therein i.e., Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. 17. It is also not in dispute that the Wakf Board represented by its Secretary filed a suit in O.S. No.36 of 1972 against Maqdoom Mohiuddin and legal heirs of Baba Mohiuddin including the tenants of the said property to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.24 of 1963. Several issues were framed therein as to whether suit schedule property is Wakf property, whether the notification relied on by the Wakf Board if valid, whether the decision in O.S. No.24 of 1963 is liable to be set aside, whether the Wakf Board is entitled to recover possession of the suit property by ejecting the respective defendants from and whether the suit is barred by limitation etc. The said suit was dismissed for default by judgment dated 11-3-1975 marked as Ex.B4. 18. It is also not in dispute that the legal heirs of Baba Mohiuddin filed a suit in O.S. No.96 of 1968 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry which was renumbered as O.S. No.23 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, against Maqdoom Mohiuddin and lessees of the suit property for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs and for recovery of its possession after ejecting the Defendants 4 to 27 therein. It is stated that Baba Mohiuddin died intestate on 15-8-1966 at Hyderabad. It is stated that Baba Mohiuddin died intestate on 15-8-1966 at Hyderabad. The tenants who are the defendants therein stated that the said property is a Wakf property as declared in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and that the said property was included in the list of Wakf properties published in the Official Gazette dated 19-4-1962 under Section 5 of the Wakf Act 1954 and the said property is not a private property of Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin. On the various pleadings, the issues as to whether the relationship set out in the plaint is true, whether the plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to the shares mentioned therein, whether the property is a Wakf property called "Subedar Saheb's Choultry", whether the declaration of the said property as Wakf property was not properly set aside and whether the Defendants 4 to 6 and 7 are not entitled to sublease the property; were considered. After considering the effect of the scheme decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and the subsequent decree in O.S. No.24 of 1963 wherein the judgment has become final, the learned Judge held that the said property is not a Wakf property, the plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 and 28 therein are entitled to the shares in the said property as claimed by them and the Defendants 4 to 6 and 7 are estopped from disputing the title of the plaintiffs to the property. Insofar as relief of ejecting the tenants is concerned it was held that the tenants are entitled to protection under the Rent Control Act and therefore, it is open for the owners to seek eviction of the tenants under the provisions of the Act and insofar as the claim of the said lessees is concerned it was held that whether they are entitled for protection under the Act is a matter to be considered by the Rent Control Tribunal. Accordingly, the suit for partition was decreed preliminarily by judgment and decree dated 11-7-1973, marked as EX.B6. (a) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was never acted upon and the effect of the said judgment was not at all considered by the subsequent judgment. Accordingly, the suit for partition was decreed preliminarily by judgment and decree dated 11-7-1973, marked as EX.B6. (a) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was never acted upon and the effect of the said judgment was not at all considered by the subsequent judgment. More so, in the suit O.S. No.96 of 1968 for partition on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry filed by the legal heirs of Baba Mohiuddin against Maqdoom Mohiuddin and the lessees, was transferred and renumbered as O.S. No.23 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry. In the said suit the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board represented by its Secretary and Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam represented by its Secretary, filed I.A Nos.738 and 708 of 1971 respectively to implead themselves as defendants. The said I.As were dismissed by common order dated 14-2-1972 against which the Wakf Board filed CRP No.726 of 1972 and this Court by order dated 18-8-2002 dismissed the said revision petition. (b) During the course of the arguments the records in CRP No.726 of 1972 are called for and the order dated 14-2-1972 in LA Nos.738 and 708 of 1971 are part of the record in CRP No.726 of 1972, which goes to show that the said I.As. have been filed under Order 1 Rule X CPC stating that the Subedar Saheb's Choultry is a registered and notified Wakf published in AP. Gazette Part II dated 19-4-1962 Serial No.256 Pages 458-459. In the year 1919, Anjuman known as "Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam" filed a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the Muslim Community of Rajahmundry vide O.S. No.17 of 1919 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry seeking a declaration that the said property is a Wakf property and the said suit was decreed and the appeal preferred against that order was also dismissed and the said order became final and conclusive. As per the said judgment the suit property is a Wakf Property and it cannot be made a subject-matter of partition. The suit O.S.No.96 of 1968 filed seeking partition of the said Wakf property "Subedar Saheb's Choultry" is illegal and contrary to law. Hence, the Wakf Board and Anjuman be made necessary parties to the suit. As per the said judgment the suit property is a Wakf Property and it cannot be made a subject-matter of partition. The suit O.S.No.96 of 1968 filed seeking partition of the said Wakf property "Subedar Saheb's Choultry" is illegal and contrary to law. Hence, the Wakf Board and Anjuman be made necessary parties to the suit. (c) The said applications were contested by the parties therein stating that is was private property and the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 is not a judgment in rem and the procedure prescribed under Section 92 CPC was not followed in that suit and the permission of the Advocate General was not obtained. The suit was filed against the minors by adding a Gosha lady unconnected with the outside world as their guardian and the said lady out of ignorance or negligence or on account of fraud and collusion with the plaintiff did not put forward valid defence. The said judgment and the appeal were never acted upon and were never treated as binding on them by the rightly owners of the suit property and the suit property is being enjoyed as usual by them as their personal property all along and no further action was taken by the plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 1919 in pursuance of the said judgment or by Court all along and the property in that suit was never taken possession by the so-called Anjuman in pursuance of the decree and the said judgment remained a dead letter for over 50 years. Therefore, it is idle to contend and plead that the said judgment rendered the suit property as Wakf property. (d) It was further contended that the Wakf Act of 1954 came into force on 21-5-1954 and Wakf Board was constituted under the provisions of the Act and item 1(a) of the plaint schedule property was included in the list of Wakfs published in the Gazette on 19-4-1962 and Baba Mohiuddin and his brother Maqdoom Mohiuddin were shown as Mutawallis thereof. Therefore, both of them issued the required notices to the Wakf Board claiming the said item 1 (a) of the suit property and requested deletion of the same from the Register of Wakfs and cancellation of the said publication dated 19-4-1962 and later filed O.S. No.24 of 1963 against the Wakf Board for the said relief. Therefore, both of them issued the required notices to the Wakf Board claiming the said item 1 (a) of the suit property and requested deletion of the same from the Register of Wakfs and cancellation of the said publication dated 19-4-1962 and later filed O.S. No.24 of 1963 against the Wakf Board for the said relief. The Wakf Board made pretence of appearance and later on became ex parte. Therefore, the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was not binding on them in the said suit filed for partition. The said suit O.S. No.24 of 1963 was decreed with costs and the costs were also paid by the Wakf Board, and the Wakf Board is aware of the judgment in O.S.No.24 of 1963, which has become final between the parties. The Wakf Board being a body corporate and a perpetual entity cannot now turn round and attack the said judgment and seek to come on record though it was decided against them in O.S. No.24 of 1963. The Wakf Board was aware of the said judgment as it is also paid costs. The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board and the Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam filed I.A. Nos.738 and 708 of 1971 seeking to implead themselves under order 1 Rule X CPC as party to the suit. After considering the claim of the Wakf Board and the Anjuman with regard to the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 the Court considered as to whether the Wakf Board or the Anjuman can be impleaded as defendants in the suit and by order dated 14-2-1972 dismissed the said applications holding that the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 which was confirmed in the appeal is not binding on the plaintiffs in view of the decree passed in O.S. No.24 of 1963 wherein it was held that the plaint schedule property is not a Wakf property but it is a private property and the Gazette Notification showing the said property as Wakf property is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. (e) It is just and proper to extract the part of Para 10 and Paras 11 and 12 of the said order dated 14-2-1972 in I.A. Nos.738 and 798 of 1971, which is impugned in CRP No.726 of 1992 as follows: "10..... .... and the suit O.S. No.24 of 1963 was filed contesting that it was not a Wakf property. (e) It is just and proper to extract the part of Para 10 and Paras 11 and 12 of the said order dated 14-2-1972 in I.A. Nos.738 and 798 of 1971, which is impugned in CRP No.726 of 1992 as follows: "10..... .... and the suit O.S. No.24 of 1963 was filed contesting that it was not a Wakf property. The Wakf Board evidently have had two months time notice of the said suit under the provisions of Section 56 of the Wakf Act. Even after receiving such a notice, the Wakf board did not try to stir itself. Even after that notice when the suit O.S. No.24 of 1963 was filed and the suit notice was taken to it, the Wakf Board did not enter any appearance and preferred to remain ex parte. The result was that it suffered an ex parte decree vide judgment dated 26-9-1963 of witch Ex.A5 is the certified copy and it was declared that the suit property was not a Wakf property. Accordingly, the suit in the said O.S. No.24 of 1963 was decreed against the Wakf Board with costs as prayed for. As already seen, the prayer in the plaint was to declare that the said property was not a Wakf property and that the notification issued in the A.P. Gazette was not valid and effective and not binding on the plaintiffs. The result was that the said property was held not to be a Wakf property and the Wakf Board was called upon to pay the costs of the suit. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the decree and it also shows that the Court declared that the plaint schedule property was not a Muslim Wakf property. It further directed that the Defendant Wakf Board should pay to the plaintiff the costs amounting to Rs.658.76 ps. After obtaining the said decree, the· plaintiffs Saba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin through their Vakil Sri V. Apparao got issued the notice EX.A10 to the Wakf Board stating that they had obtained a decree against the said Board for costs of Rs.658.76 ps. in O.S. No.24 of 1963 on 26-9-1963. They further demanded the payment of the said amount to them stating further if it was not satisfied they would be constrained to proceed against the Board in execution of the decree and that it would be liable to pay further costs. in O.S. No.24 of 1963 on 26-9-1963. They further demanded the payment of the said amount to them stating further if it was not satisfied they would be constrained to proceed against the Board in execution of the decree and that it would be liable to pay further costs. They also sent to the Board along with that letter a true copy of the decree for reference. Thus, it is abundantly clear from this notice EX.A10 that the Wakf Board positively came to know about the decree against it in O.S. No.24 of 1963 as it came into possession of the certified copy of that decree and was further called upon to pay the costs Rs.658.76 ps. shown therein. On receipt of this notice the Secretary of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, issued the letter EX.A11 to the Inspector, Auditor Wakfs, East and West Godavari Districts, Head Quarters, Rajhamundry marking a copy to Sri V. Apparao, B.A., B.L., Vakil for the plaintiffs Saba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin. It stated therein that the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry issued a decree against the Board for costs of Rs.658.76 ps., in O.S.No.24 of 1963 on the file of the District Court on 26-9-1963 and that a Bank Draft for the said amount was enclosed for depositing the amount in the said Court in the prescribed form and for sending the Court, receipt to their office immediately. Thus, it is apparent that even that decree was satisfied by sending the costs. Again EX.A3 is the certified copy of the suit register extract and its last page at Col. No.11(4) discloses that the full satisfaction of that decree was recorded on 6-10-1964. Thus, that decree was fully satisfied. Hence, the effect of the said decree passed in O.S. No.24 of 1963 was that the judgment already delivered in O.S.NO.17 of 1919 became inoperative and ineffective and was superseded by the judgment passed in O.S. No.24 of 1963. The Wakf Board did not prefer any appeal against that judgment and so it became final and conclusive. Therefore, the Wakf Board cannot now be allowed to re-agitate the matter by entering its appearance as a party in the present suit. 11. It is next to be seen whether the said Anjuman can be allowed to get impleaded itself as a defendant in the suit. Therefore, the Wakf Board cannot now be allowed to re-agitate the matter by entering its appearance as a party in the present suit. 11. It is next to be seen whether the said Anjuman can be allowed to get impleaded itself as a defendant in the suit. It is already stated that after the enactment of the Wakf Act, the property vested in the Wakf Board and the Anjuman had no more right to manage the same or whatever rights accrued to it by virtue of the decree passed in O.S. No.17 of 1919 passed over to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board issued a notification in the Gazette and the same was challenged in O.S. No.24 of 1963. In the result Saba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin succeeded in getting a declaratory decree that the said property was not a Wakf property. So after the enactment of the Wakf Act, the said Anjuman could not be deemed to have any concern with property, as it had to be taken over by the Wakf Board. Besides this position it is to be seen further whether the said Anjurnan is still in existence and is normally discharging its functions. For this purpose, EX.B2 the annual report of the said Anjurnan dated 29-12-1957 was filed. But it is a report of the year 1957 and no record was made available to this Court to show that it functioned subsequent thereto or that it is still functioning and is very much in existence or that it is carrying on its normal duties presently. It is further apparent from a perusal of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act that an annual list of the managing body of the society should be filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. It is apparent that no such list was filed that would show that the Anjurnan has no legal existence. Further Section 55(2) of the Wakf Act of 1954 enjoins that no suit to obtain any of the reliefs referred to in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 relating to any Wakf shall be instituted by any person or authority other than the Board without the consent in writing of the Board. Thus, even assuming that such Anjwnan has a legal existence, it cannot file any suit, without obtaining the consent of the Wakf Board, such consent is also lacking. Thus, even assuming that such Anjwnan has a legal existence, it cannot file any suit, without obtaining the consent of the Wakf Board, such consent is also lacking. Furthermore, when it has been seen that the Wakf Board itself is not entitled to get itself impleaded as a defendant in the suit to contest the claim of the plaintiffs, much less, can it be said that the Anjurnan can be held to be clothed with a right to do so. 12. In the result, therefore, on the points framed, I hold that the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board or the said Anjuman cannot be impleaded as defendants in the instant suit O.S. No.96 of 1968. I.A. No.738 of 1971 and 708 of 1971 are therefore, dismissed with costs. . . . . . " It is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 19. As stated above the plaint schedule property "Subedar Saheb Choultry" popularly known as "Jaihind Buildings" bearing Municipal No.10-15-33 situated at Main Road on the eastern side. It is not in dispute that as per Ex.A4 judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 dated 30-10-1919, three Muslims claiming to be the members of a Mohammedan Association called Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam and the first plaintiff as its Secretary, second plaintiff as its Treasurer and third plaintiff as member of the Executive Committee filed the suit against Ameerunnisa Begum and her two minor children - Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin wherein the suit property was held to be a Wakf property and the said judgment was also confirmed under Ex.A8 judgment dated 24-11-1921 passed in O.S.No.138 of 1920. Thereafter it was recorded in the Town Survey Register under Ex.x1 in 1924 that Baba Mohiuddin was the owner of the plaint schedule property as private property, which was marked through P.W4 - Town Surveyor. It is also not in dispute that Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin and their sisters executed a registered lease deed dated 17-9-1945 under Ex.B5 in favour of Kaki Satyanarayana and three others for 22 years with a right to demolish the existing godowns and construct buildings with upstairs for shops. Ex.B5 was executed as if they are the owners and the property not a trust property. Ex.B5 was executed as if they are the owners and the property not a trust property. Thereafter, Ex.A11 Gazette Notification was questioned in O.S. No.24 of 1963 by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin to declare that the said property is not a Wakf property and the earlier judgment under EX.A4 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was also referred and the said suit was decreed as prayed for and it has become final. 20. As already stated, Maqdoom Mohiuddin and Baba Mohiuddin and their legal heirs and successors in interest treated the said property as their private property and the suit O.S. No.96 of 1968 was filed on the file of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry for partition of the suit property in which the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board filed in I.A. No.738 of 1971 and Anjuman-E-Himayath-Islam, Rajahmundry represented by its Secretary filed I.A. No.708 of 1971 under order 1 Rule X CPC to implead themselves claiming that the suit schedule property as Wakf property and the said two I.As were enquired and after filing as many as 11 documents on behalf of the Wakf Board and the predecessors in title of the plaintiff herein and the certified copy of EX.A4 judgment and the Commissioner's report on the survey of Wakf dated 23-1-1956, it was held that it was not a Wakf property and it was a private property and therefore, they are not entitled to get impleaded in the suit for partition vide order dated 14-2-1972 against which CRP No.726 of 1972 filed by Wakf Board was dismissed by this Court on 18-8-1972. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff and Wakf Board was rejected as early as in 1972. The said suit O.S. No.96 of 1968 was transferred and renumbered as O.S. No.23 of 1970 on the file Subordinate Judge and the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 11-7-1973 by granting a preliminary decree for partition among the parties and the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 28 were also entitled to the accounts from the Defendants 4 to 6 and 27 therein for the lease period under the leased deed till the actual delivery of possession and the tenants are entitled for protection under the Rent Control Act and it is open for the landlords to seek eviction of the tenants. Thus, the suit for partition was decreed but it was held that the Rent Control Act applies and therefore, the tenants cannot be dispossessed and separate action has to be initiated under the Act. Thereafter, the Wakf Board filed a suit in O.S. No.36 of 1972 against the legal representatives of Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin, their sisters, tenants and subtenants to set· aside the judgment in O.S. No.24 of 1963 dated 26-9-1963 claiming the said property as Wakf property. The suit was dismissed for default of the plaintiff after framing the issues by judgment dated 11-3-1975 under Ex.B4. 21. Thus, it is the case of the appellants that as there was no dispute with regard to the title of the property either by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board or the plaintiff-trust and as it was enjoyed as self-acquired property of the said Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin and as the property was given under long lease in favour of Kaki people, who are the tenants and the lessees entered into a compromise in 1984 and accordingly the said property was sold in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 after receiving the consideration from the respective parties vide Exs.A13 to A17 dated 30-4-1985 wherein the original owners, their legal representatives, three sisters, the tenants and the Kaki people were parties. As the purchasers have become owners by virtue of sale deeds eviction petitions have been filed against the subtenants and the sub-tenants also filed R.C.Cs seeking permission to deposit the rents in the Court. Thus, it is stated that though the Wakf Board was not having any right, title or interest issued Ex.A12 notice dated 15-7-1985 requesting the tenants not to pay the rents but admittedly the Wakf Board has not initiated any action by filing a suit or took any action under the Act. But the plaintiff claiming to be Muslim elders at the instance of the sub-tenants filed I.A.No.1800 of 1992 and 37 of 1993 in O.S.No.17 of 1919 without impleading Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin or their legal heirs or successors in interest and got appointed the alleged Trust Board under EX.A7. But the plaintiff claiming to be Muslim elders at the instance of the sub-tenants filed I.A.No.1800 of 1992 and 37 of 1993 in O.S.No.17 of 1919 without impleading Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin or their legal heirs or successors in interest and got appointed the alleged Trust Board under EX.A7. It is stated that the said orders appointing the Trust Board is invalid and has no legal force as the trust was never acted upon or continued and the claim of the Trust Board and the Wakf Board was already rejected. 22. It is stated that the appellants came to know that a reply notice was got published by the Trust Board describing that the plaintiff as President of Subedar Saheb Choultry Committee. It is stated that the order of appointment of the Trust Board in the said I.A. under EX.A20 is illegal and has no force as the plaintiff never enjoyed the trust property and as the defendants in O.S. No.17 of 1919 and their successors in interest were not impleaded. Though the alleged Trust Board was appointed by order dated 15-1-1986 in I.A.No.1903 of 1985 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 the present suit O.S. No.6 of 1994 was filed after eight years on 17-1-1994. It is stated that in view of the order dated 14-2-1972 assed in I.A. Nos.738 and 701 of 1971 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 the appointment of rust Board in E.P. No. 104 of 1999 in O.S.No.17 of 1919 impleading the plaintiff, as trustee is illegal and arbitrary. However, they were ex parte orders without pleading Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin and their successors in interest. Thus, the learned Counsel for the appellants Submits that the suit is not maintainable for cancellation and to set aside the sale deeds and the same is misconceived. 23. It is further stated that the suit to set aside the sale deed or any instrument be filed only in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act by the parties to the instrument and if they are not parties to the instrument they have to file a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Admittedly, the suit is not filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Admittedly, the suit is not filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is further stated as per the judgment in Vemula Maniamma v. Allugada Venkatamma, AIR 1984 NOC 80, the parties to the instrument can only file a suit for cancellation of the instrument under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and where the sale deeds sought to be cancelled were executed by the third parties the cancellation cannot be sought for by the persons who are not the parties to the instrument and therefore the suit is not maintainable. In such a case, a suit for declaration of their title and the consequent relief has to be asked for. 24. It is further stated that, in fact, one of the tenants, PW.5, is a Muslim tenant and he is the person to engineer the filing of the suit to prevent the appellants from getting the benefit of the decree passed in their favour by the Rent Control Court and from withdrawing the deposit by the sub-tenants. It is stated that when the plaintiff was never in possession of the property the question of seeking damages of the mesne profits does not arise. It is further stated that admittedly the suit was filed against the appellants, who are the purchasers of the suit property and the plaintiff have not impleaded the proper and necessary parties who are the original owners, their successors in interest and legal heirs of the main tenants who jointly sold the said property in favour of the appellants. Therefore, it is stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the proper and necessary parties and it is liable to be dismissed. 25. It is further stated that plaintiffs claim to be a Trust Board pursuant to the different orders Wider Ex.A9 dated 15-1-1986, 30-8-1986 and EX.A1 12-10-1999 obtained in O.S. No.17 of 1919. The orders Exs.A1 and A2 have been obtained without impleading proper and necessary parties, as such the said orders do not confer any right on the plaintiff to file the suit. It is further stated that after commencement of Wakf Act, it is the Wakf Board which is alone entitled to represent the Wakf properties as is clear from Sections 6, 32(2), 89, 90 and 92 of the Wakf Act. It is further stated that after commencement of Wakf Act, it is the Wakf Board which is alone entitled to represent the Wakf properties as is clear from Sections 6, 32(2), 89, 90 and 92 of the Wakf Act. As per the judgment of Patna High Court in Maulvi Reza Ansari v. Shyamlal Sah, AIR 1983 Pat. 299 , after the Wakf Act 1954 came into force Mutawalli of Wakf Board cannot institute the suit. Therefore, the Wakf Board alone is entitled to file any such suit if it has got any right and interest and if the said property belongs to Wakf. Even Section 66(e) of the Wakf Act, 1954 also bars the suits filed by any persons other than by the Wakf Board. It is further stated that the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was never acted upon and admittedly, Baba Mohiuddin was a minor and the minor cannot accept the trusteeship as it involves obligation to account and discretionary power as to its administration. The acceptance is necessary for creation of trust, as required under Section 10 of the Trusts Act. Thus, it is stated that Baba Mohiuddin and his brother Maqdoom Mohiuddin always enjoyed the said property as their own but not as trustees. 26. It is further stated that the suit filed for cancellation of sale deeds and for mesne profits is barred by limitation as Wider Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the suit for cancellation of an instrument has to be filed within three years. Admittedly the sale deeds were registered in 1985 but whereas the suit has been filed in 1994 after 9 years. It is stated that as admitted by P.W.1 they are aware of the sale deeds Wider Exs.A13 to A17 on 10-2-1986 itself and the Trust Board was appointed under EX.A9 dated 15-1-1986 and issued paper publication but whereas the suit was filed on 17-1-1994 and thus, it is stated that the suit is clearly barred by limitation as it is beyond three years from the date of actual knowledge. However, it is stated that by virtue of Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, every registered document is a constructive notice and in view of the admission of the plaintiff that they are aware of the sale deeds in 1986 itself, the suit is barred by limitation. 27. However, it is stated that by virtue of Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, every registered document is a constructive notice and in view of the admission of the plaintiff that they are aware of the sale deeds in 1986 itself, the suit is barred by limitation. 27. It is stated that the suit was admittedly filed prior to the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Act, 1995 came into force, therefore, Wakf Act 1954 will apply and under Section 55 of Wakf Act 1954 the suit in respect of the relief mentioned under Section 92 CPC has to be filed by the Board alone and if any suit is filed by another person other than the Wakf Board it has to take sanction in writing from the Wakf Board. Similarly, it is stated that no suit is maintainable against the Wakf Board even by the private party without issuance of two months notice to the Wakf Board and in all suits filed by private persons against Wakf Board or Mutawalli notice is required to be issued to the Wakf Board. It is stated that even Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 has no application to the suit filed to set aside the sale deeds but Section 107 of the Wakf Act 1995 applies only in respect of suits for recovery of possession of immovable properties. Thus, it is stated that the present suit is admittedly not for possession but it is only for setting aside or cancellation of sale deeds and recovery of money viz., mesne profits for use and occupation, therefore, the plaintiff cannot take shelter even under Section 107 of Wakf Act, 1995. It is stated that no civil suit in respect of dispute in question relating to any Wakf or Wakf property is maintainable under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and therefore, the suit filed before commencement of Wakf Act, 1995 without taking legal recourse under Section 92 CPC even for declaration that the said property is a trust property is not maintainable. It is further stated that Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954 stipulates that the suit to obtain any relief mentioned under Section 92 CPC relating to any Wakf cannot be instituted without obtaining the consent referred to under Section 92 CPC. It is further stated that Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954 stipulates that the suit to obtain any relief mentioned under Section 92 CPC relating to any Wakf cannot be instituted without obtaining the consent referred to under Section 92 CPC. Under Section 55(2) of the Act no such suit is maintainable without obtaining consent in writing from the Wakf Board and thus, it is stated that the suit is not maintainable in any view of the matter. 28. It is further stated that the' appellants have taken a clear plea of adverse possession in Para 8-A of the written statement filed by the Defendants 1 to 4 and in Paras 5 and 7 of the written statement filed by Defendant No.6 but the said plea was not at all considered in spite of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the appellants herein. It is further stated that under Section 66(g) of the Wakf Act, 1954, which came into force from 1984 the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property shall be 30 years and such period shall be taken to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. It is stated that under Section 66(g) provides 30 years limitation instead of 12 years provided under Articles 63 and 64 of the Limitation Act. It is stated that the possession of the defendants was to the notice of the plaintiff prior to 1972 itself 'and the Trust Committee was never constituted, as the, Trust Board was never acted upon from 1920 onwards. However, the Wakf Board and the plaintiff trust made an attempt to claim the said property as trust property in 1971 itself by filing applications to implead themselves in O.S. No.96 of 1968 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, which was transferred and renumbered as O.S. No.23 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry. Even the suit filed by the plaintiff is not for possession under Section 66(g) of the Wakf Act 1954 and had the plaintiff filed any suit for possession it would have been maintainable if it was filed within 30 years. Admittedly, the suit is not for possession and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and barred by limitation. 29. Admittedly, the suit is not for possession and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and barred by limitation. 29. It is stated that Ex.X1 clearly goes to show that the said property was shown as private property in 1924 itself and Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin have enjoyed the said property as their private property as absolute owners and thereafter their legal heirs. As admitted by the plaintiffs in their depositions the Trust Board was never appointed or constituted after EX.A 7 scheme for appointment of the management of the Subedar Saheb Choultry on 11.12.1919 till the plaintiffs obtained orders for constituting the Trust Board by filing interlocutory applications in O.S. No.17 of 1919 in 1986. It is also admitted that the Trust Board prior to 1993 has maintained on records. Though no Trust Board was appointed even though a scheme was formulated by virtue of decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919, the plaintiff trust has been appointed for the first time in 1986 itself under Ex.A9 order dated 15-1-1986. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not in possession of the plaint schedule property at any point of time, as such it had no occasion to manage the plaint schedule property. 30. It is stated that even the orders passed in 1919 in O.S. No.17 of 1919 are only with regard to the constitution of the Trust Board and admittedly the plaintiff never took possession of the said property. It is stated that Babu Mohiuddin is said have been appointed as trustee when he was minor but neither Baba Mohiuddin nor other trustees have acted as trustees even after EX.A 7 scheme. Admittedly, Maqdoom Mohiuddin was never appointed as trustee and he was enjoying the said property as his own along with his brother and other successors, and Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin never acted as trustees, therefore, it cannot be said that limitation has no application to the case on hand. It is stated that as per the scheme decree the first appointment of 3 man committee trustees Baba Mohiuddin was only 8 years and he never acted as trustee and both the brothers and their sisters enjoyed the property as their own from 1920 till the said property has been sold in favour of the appellants. It is stated that as per the scheme decree the first appointment of 3 man committee trustees Baba Mohiuddin was only 8 years and he never acted as trustee and both the brothers and their sisters enjoyed the property as their own from 1920 till the said property has been sold in favour of the appellants. It is further stated that there is no evidence to show that even the trustees appointed in 1919 ever functioned and the said order under Ex.A7 was never implemented and the Trust Board never collected any rents or maintained any accounts and the said property was never treated as trust property after 1920. Thus, it is stated that when the claim of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board and the claim of the so-called trust was rejected as early as in 1972 itself in the applications filed by them in I.A. Nos.738 and 708 of 1971 in the suit O.S. No.96 of 1968 for partition and more so, when the suit filed by the plaintiff is not for possession, the suit is not maintainable and hopelessly barred by limitation. 31. It is further stated that Maqdoom Mohiuddin and other sisters, who have not claimed the property from Baba Mohiuddin, have not been appointed as trustees under Ex.A7 and the Kaki people have been in possession since 1945 are not trustees at all and Exs.B2 to B6 judgments clearly go to show that it was not a trust property but it is a private property. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 32. It is further stated that the subtenants of the Kaki people independently claimed right without claiming the right through the plaintiff or the Wakf Board and they have erroneously doubted the right and title of the appellants without any justification an therefore, their applications filed seeking to deposit the rents were dismissed. The appellants and their predecessors in title paid the property tax and enjoyed the property from 1920 onwards till the date of purchase. Therefore, the simple suit filed by the plaintiff to set aside the sale deeds is not maintainable. 33. The appellants and their predecessors in title paid the property tax and enjoyed the property from 1920 onwards till the date of purchase. Therefore, the simple suit filed by the plaintiff to set aside the sale deeds is not maintainable. 33. It is further stated that the orders passed in the interlocutory applications filed by the Wakf Board and the plaintiff-trust in I.A. Nos.738 and 708 of 1971 in O.S. No.96 of 1968 dismissing the said applications which was confirmed by this Court in CRP No.726 of 1972 by order dated 6-4-1972 operates as res judicata and the other judgments in EX.B2 to B6 also operate as res judicata as the said property was held to be a private property but not a Wakf property. It is stated that the orders in two I.As confirmed by this Court in CRP are valid and binding on the Wakf Board, the plaintiff-trust and all persons claiming interest in the said property. Therefore, the said judgments have become final and the present suit is not maintainable. 34. an the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 i.e., plaintiff-trust and Wakf Board, submits that Baba Mohiuddin was one of the trustees appointed under EX.A 7 scheme along with two others and therefore, he was enjoying the property as trustee only and once the trust is created it shall continue in its perpetuity and the decree obtained by the vendors of the plaintiff in O.S. No.24 of 1963 under Ex.B3 to set aside the notification issued by the Wakf Board including the said property in the list of Wakf properties was an ex parte decree and the suit filed by the Wakf Board in O.S. No.36 of 1972 was dismissed for default. Therefore, the said decisions being not on merits would not operate as res judicata in the suit filed by the plaintiff. 35. It is stated that one Subedar Major Shaik Ibrahim created the trust in 1859 and died in 1866 and his adopted son Munshi Shaik Imam Saheb i.e., father of Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin and husband of Ameerunnisa Begum, died in 1908 and as his wife was mismanaging the trust, the suit in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was filed, which was decreed under EX.A4 dated 30-10-1919. The suit was filed because of her mismanagement and accordingly a scheme was framed under EX.A7 for maintenance of the said property. No doubt the accounts were not maintained from 1920 to 1945 and instead of treating the said property as trust property they treated the said property as their own and leased out the same under EX.B5 dated 17-9-1945 to the Kaki people. The suit filed by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin in O.S. No.24 of 1963 against Wakf Board was decreed ex parte and the said suit was not filed within one year and the same is barred by limitation. The title of the property relied by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin represented by their guardian and natural mother was rejected in the suit O.S. No.17 of 1919, which was upheld in O.S. No.138 of 1920, therefore, it cannot be said that it was not a Wakf property. Even according to the defendants it was Wakf property alone but their vendors have acquired the title by adverse possession, as the Wakf never managed the said property. It is stated that the trustees can never take the plea of adverse possession and set up a title, though Baba Mohiuddin was not the trustee as he was minor when the scheme was framed under Ex.B7. 36. It is stated that the lease deed EX.B5 executed in 1945 and sale deeds made in favour of the defendants are all illegal and invalid and have no force of law. The possession of the vendors of the defendants is only permissive possession and not independent or adverse to the trust. - The property in question is not ancestral property of the vendors of the defendants and the action of the trustee Baba Mohiuddin is nothing but breach of trust and once it is a Wakf property it is always a Wakf property and therefore, any alienation without the sanction of the Wakf Board is null and void. Therefore, EX.B4 judgment does not operate as res judicata and it has no force of law in view of EX.A4 judgment. 37. Therefore, EX.B4 judgment does not operate as res judicata and it has no force of law in view of EX.A4 judgment. 37. It is further stated that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Waif Board, AIR 1998 SC 972 = 1998 (2) ALD (SCSN) 31, a Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by the Muslim Law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakfwould always retain its character as a Wakf. Once a Wakf is always a Wakf. In the said case it was held that Wakf being a permanent dedication the grant of patta under the Inams Act by Tahsildar cannot operate as res judicata upon the character of the Wakf property in the subsequent suit filed by the Wakf Board under Section 6 of the Wakf Act for deciding the character of the Wakf property. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a decision of the Court or Tribunal, which lacked jurisdiction, as Section 14 of the Inams Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, does not bar the filing of the suit by the Wakf Board. In the said suit the property was notified as Wakf property in the Andhra Pradesh Official Gazette on 30-11-1961 and no suit had been filed challenging the Wakf and the entries in the Official Gazette describing the property a Wakf, became final and conclusive. Thereafter the Tahsildar made a suo motu enquiry for the purpose of granting patta and the patta had been granted. As it was declared as Wakf property the Wakf questioned the said grant of patta by filing a separate suit and the plea of the patta holder that the subsequent suit filed by Wakf Board is barred by res judicata was rejected on the ground that it was not within domain of the Tahsildar to embark upon an enquiry in respect of Wakf property and Section 14 of Inams Act cannot affect the maintainability of the suit filed by the Wakf Board. After Wakf is created it continues to be so for all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and grant of patta does not affect the original character of the Wakf property. 38. After Wakf is created it continues to be so for all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and grant of patta does not affect the original character of the Wakf property. 38. Learned Counsel appearing for the Wakf Board and the plaintiff-trust also relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Radhakrishna Rice Mill Co. v. Jumma Maseedh by its Muthavalli, 2002 (6) ALD 52 (DB), wherein it was held that a scheme was framed in a suit filed in 1913 under Sections 92 and 93 of CPC regarding the administration of the Mosque and different properties and one such property was leased out to a tenant wherein a rice mill was-constructed and Muthavalli filed a suit for eviction of the tenant and while rejecting the plea of permanent tenancy of the tenant it was held that the relationship of the lessor and lessee between the Mosque and the tenant was not in dispute and the tenant suffered a decree of eviction way back in 1949 in the suit O.S. No.84 of 1948 without taking a plea permanent tenancy. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Section 36-F of the Wakf Act 1954 the lease or sub-lease of any Wakf property for any period exceeding three years shall be void and of no effect and the corresponding provision under the Wakf Act 1995 is Section 56. For the said the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954 were made applicable and held that the trial Court rightly passed the decree of eviction. 39. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellants, relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Maulvi Reza Ansari's case (supra), stating that Mutawalli as defined under Section 3 of the Wakf Act 1954 is bound to carry on the directions of the Board under Section 36 of the Act and therefore, Mutawalli is a mere Manager of the Wakf, which is directly under the control and provisions of the Wakf Board and the Mutawalli even may be removed in accordance with Section 43 of the Act and as there is nothing under the Act which empowers the Mutawalli to institute a suit and proceedings in a Court of law relation to Wakf on his own. Thus property is vested in the Board, which is corporate body and it may sue or may be sued in its own name. 40. The contention of the appellants/ defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and that the earlier judgments under Exs.B3, B4 and B6 are binding on the plaintiff and the Wakf Board is also rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the judgment under Ex.A4 is binding on Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin and held that the vendors of the defendants have no manner of right to sell the plaint schedule property as it was already declared that it is not a private property but trust property of Subedar Saheb Choultry in O.S. No.17 of 1919. Therefore, Exs.A13 to A17 sale deeds are liable to be set aside and accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for, as the sale deeds obtained by the defendants are void, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff. The claim of the past damages was rejected and granted the damages at the rate of Rs.l,500/per month from the date of sale deeds 12-6-1985 till the date of delivery of possession. It was further held that the suit is also not barred by limitation in view of Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as such, the declaration to declare the sale deeds as null and void is not barred by limitation. The trial Court further held that the vendors of the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 are not necessary and proper parties and the persons in occupation of the property are also not proper and necessary parties as the sale deeds are void, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff. 41. Admittedly, the suit was presented on 17-1-1994 and filed on 18-1-1994. It is not a suit filed under the Wakf Act, 1995 which received the assent of the President on 22-11-1995 and which came into force after 22-11-1995. The Wakf Tribunals have been constituted under Section 83 of Wakf Act, 1995 and after the said Act came into force no civil suit is maintainable in respect of Wakf properties and any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property has to be decided by the Wakf Tribunal alone. The Wakf Tribunals have been constituted under Section 83 of Wakf Act, 1995 and after the said Act came into force no civil suit is maintainable in respect of Wakf properties and any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property has to be decided by the Wakf Tribunal alone. Under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in a Civil Court in respect of the dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf properties and other matters which required by or under the Act to be determined by the Wakf Tribunal. Therefore, any suit filed prior to Wakf Act, 1995 came into force must be in accordance with the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954. Under Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954 the suit to obtain any relief mentioned under Section 92 CPC relating to any Wakf shall be instituted by the Wakf Board after obtaining the consent referred to under Section 92 CPC. No suit to obtain any relief referred to under Section 92 CPC relating to any Wakf shall be instituted by any person or authority other than the Wakf Board with the consent in writing of the Wakf Board but it is open for the private individuals to file any suit against the Wakf Board without reference to Section 92 CPC. Under Section 92 CPC without obtaining the leave of the Court no suit can be instituted in respect of a trust for the alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, for obtaining a decree for removing any trustee, appointing a new trustee, vesting any property in a trustee and directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to possession of such property, directing accounts and inquiries, declaring what proportion of the trust property· or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust, authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged, settling a scheme or granting such further or other reliefs as the nature of the case may require. 42. 42. Section 92(2) CPC specifically bars the filing of the suit claiming any relief under Section 92(1) CPC except in conformity with the provisions of Section 91. The Court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cypress in the circumstances mentioned under Section 92(3)(a) to (e) CPC. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed before the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force in respect of relief under Section 92(1)(h) CPC not in conformity with Section 92(1) of CPC and therefore, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954. 43. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not obtained the leave of the Court and the consent in writing of the Wakf Board as contemplated under Section 55(2) of Wakf Act, 1954. As already stated, the plea of the Wakf Board and the Anjuman-E-Himayth-E-Islam that the alleged trust of the plaintiff are the interested persons of the trust was rejected in the partition suit among the family members of Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin, their sisters, the lessees - Kaki people and other tenants. As already stated, the plea of the Wakf Board and the Anjuman-E-Himayth-E-Islam that the alleged trust of the plaintiff are the interested persons of the trust was rejected in the partition suit among the family members of Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin, their sisters, the lessees - Kaki people and other tenants. In the said suit the Wakf Board and the plaintiff-trust filed applications to implead them as parties to the suit contending that the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 is binding on the vendors of the defendants and it was a Wakf property and that the lease granted for 22 years under Ex.B5 dated 17-9-1945 is in contravention of the provisions of the Mohammedan Law as the Wakf property cannot be leased out without the permission of the trust for period exceeding one year and the said property cannot be a subject-matter of partition and that the said property was included in the list of Wakf properties in the Gazette Notification dated 19-4-1962 and that the suit filed by Baba Mohiuddin and Maqdoom Mohiuddin in O.S. No.24 of 1963 (Exs.B2 and B3) against Wakf Board for cancellation of the publication showing the said property as Wakf property, which was decreed is not followed etc., were all negated holding that under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 to decide the question as to whether a particular property or not the interested person may institute a suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, as such, the plaintiffs rightly filed the suit claiming the relief as to declare that it is not a Wakf property and that the notification in the Gazette was invalid and inoperative and not binding on them, therefore, it was held that they had every right to file a suit under the provisions of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and the suit is filed within time on 24-6-1963 and ex parte judgment in O.S. No.24 of 1963 declaring that the said property is not Wakf property but it is a private property and the suit was filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and the decision given in 1919 was never given effect to and the plaintiff were in possession for more than 40 years in their own right and adversary to the alleged decree holder in O.S. No.17 of 1919. In fact, the Wakf Board had full knowledge about the said decree as it also paid costs under the decree in O.S. No.24 of 1963 and the same IS binding on the respondents therein. Accordingly, it was held that the effect of the said judgment in O.S. No.24 of 1962 was that the judgment delivered in O.S.No.17 of 1919 became inoperative, ineffective and superseded by the said judgment. 44. The Wakf Board did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and therefore, it has become final and conclusive. Therefore, the claim of the Wakf Board was to be rejected. Similarly, with regard to the contention of Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam, which is said to be the trust as per decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919, it was held that there was no record to show that the said Anjuman was discharging its functions, therefore, it has no legal existence and further under Section 55(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 no suit to obtain any relief referred to under Section 92 CPC relating to any Wakf shall be instituted by any person or authority other than the Wakf Board without the consent in writing of the Board. Admittedly, the Anjuman has not obtained the consent of the Wakf Board and when the Wakf Board itself is not entitled to get impleaded as defendants in the suit to contest the claim of partition, the said Anjuman cannot also held to be clothed with any right to do so. Accordingly, the implead applications have been dismissed which have been upheld by this Court in CRP No.726 of 1972 by order dated 6-4-1972. 45. I am of the opinion that the trial Court has failed to consider the maintainability of the suit in accordance with Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954 but it has erroneously considered the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 which has no application as the suit was filed prior to the Wakf Act 1995 came into force. The appeal of the Wakf Act, 1954 by virtue of Section 112 ofWakf Act, 1995 shall not affect the previous operation of the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954 and any action taken under the Wakf Act, 1954 shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the Wakf Act, 1995. The appeal of the Wakf Act, 1954 by virtue of Section 112 ofWakf Act, 1995 shall not affect the previous operation of the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954 and any action taken under the Wakf Act, 1954 shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the Wakf Act, 1995. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the suit filed prior to the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force without following the mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954 is not maintainable and the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 cannot be made applicable as admittedly the suit was not filed after the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force. However, under the Wakf Act, 1995 there is a bar of filing a civil suit but the only course that is open is to take action under the relevant provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 for any dispute in respect of a Wakf property. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 have no application to the suit filed prior to the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force and further that Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 has no application but Section 66(g) of the Wakf Act, 1954 only applies to the instant case for seeking possession of immovable property or for possession of any interest in such property. I am of the opinion that the suit is not filed for recovery of possession and without filing the suit for possession, as admittedly the suit property is not in possession of the plaintiff, the suit filed for declaration that the sale deeds obtained by the defendants are null and void and are liable to be set aside without impleading their vendors and persons, who are in possession, is not maintainable. All the issues are accordingly answered in favour of the appellants. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 46. The appeal suit is accordingly allowed setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.6 of 1994 dated 31-10-2003 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dismissing the suit. CRP Nos.2773, 2793, 2815, 2882, 2961, 2967, 2989, 2990, 2991, 2992, 2993, 2994, 2995, 3134, 3138 and 3146 0) 2002: 47. 46. The appeal suit is accordingly allowed setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.6 of 1994 dated 31-10-2003 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dismissing the suit. CRP Nos.2773, 2793, 2815, 2882, 2961, 2967, 2989, 2990, 2991, 2992, 2993, 2994, 2995, 3134, 3138 and 3146 0) 2002: 47. All the petitioners in the civil revision petitions filed R.C.Cs against the District Wakf Committee and the Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court until ownership of the said building is established and the landlords filed R.C.Cs against the residents/tenants of the shop rooms of the schedule property on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, sub-let, denial of title of the landlords and that the schedule premises is bona fidely required for the personal occupation of the respective landlords for commencing their respective business. 48. The Rent Controller/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, by common order dated 27-2-1999 held that tenants are not entitled to be permitted to deposit the rents into Court. With regard to the claim of the Wakf Committee, the Rent Controller while considering the effect of judgments and decrees under Exs.B3, B4 and B6 in O.S. Nos.24 of 1963, 23 of 1970 and 36 of 1972 held that after passing the decree in O.S. No.17 of 1919 the Wakf Board did not take possession of the suit schedule property but allowed the legal heirs of Shaik Imam to continue in possession and they independently exercised their rights therein by leasing out the schedule property to Kaki people under EX.B1 in the suit, which is marked as EX.A1 in the R.C.Cs. The contention of the Wakf Board that the judgments in O.S. No.24 of 1963 and 23 of 1970 are not binding on the plaintiff and Wakf Board was not accepted. As per the judgment in O.S. No.24 of 1963 filed against the Wakf Board it was held that the schedule property is not a Wakf property but it is private property, which is binding and the attempt made by the Wakf Board to set aside the said judgment in O.S. No.36 of 1972 was also dismissed. As per the judgment in O.S. No.24 of 1963 filed against the Wakf Board it was held that the schedule property is not a Wakf property but it is private property, which is binding and the attempt made by the Wakf Board to set aside the said judgment in O.S. No.36 of 1972 was also dismissed. In the suit O.S. No.23 of 1970 filed for partition, the effect of the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1919 was also considered in a full-fledges trial and held that the suit schedule property is not a Wakf property and the attempt made by the Wakf Board to add itself as one of the parties was dismissed and the subsequent suit filed by the Wakf Board in O.S. No.36 of 1972 for cancellation of the decree in O.S. No.24 of 1963 was also dismissed. Therefore, the contention that there was a dispute with regard to the title and that it was not a private property but a Wakf property as contended by the tenants was rejected. It was further held that the Rent Controller has no right to decide the title of the parties except to see whether the denial of title by the tenants is bona fide or mala fide and considering the effect of the judgments under Exs.B3, B4 and B6 and other oral and documentary evidence held that the claim of ownership by the Wakf Board in 1985 is quite absurd. 49. I.A. Nos.3605 to 3623 of 1994 filed by the tenants stating that the schedule property is a Wakf property and that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to deal with the eviction petitions by placing the title of the schedule property in the Wakf Board. In fact, the admission made by the tenants goes to show that Kaki people and the family members of the Maqdoom Mohiuddin informed them that the building has been sold away to the landlords' and directed them to pay the rents to the purchaser. In fact, they tendered the rents to the purchasers in the year 1985 but it is alleged that they have refused to receive the same. But contrary to the said pleadings the tenants have set up a title in the Wakf Board and filed R.C.Cs seeking permission to deposit the rents under Section 9 of the Act. In fact, they tendered the rents to the purchasers in the year 1985 but it is alleged that they have refused to receive the same. But contrary to the said pleadings the tenants have set up a title in the Wakf Board and filed R.C.Cs seeking permission to deposit the rents under Section 9 of the Act. The judgments in O.S. No.23 of 1970 and 36 of 1972 wherein the tenants are parties to the suits clearly go to show that the denial of title is not bona fide but it is mala fide. 50. Admittedly under EX.B5 sale deed, which is marked as EX.A1 in the R.C.Cs goes to show that the lease was granted for a period of 22 years to the Kaki people in 1945 which expired in 1967 and the said Kaki people are the lessees and they have sub-let the said premises to the tenants, who are the petitioners herein, therefore, by afflux of time the lease period in favour of the original lessees would automatically cease including the permission to grant sub-let, as such, the tenants are not entitled to continue in the said premises and they are liable to be evicted. Insofar as the plea of sub-let is concerned, the Rent Controller rejected the said plea and held that the tenants are not liable to be evicted on this ground. Insofar as wilful default in payment of rents is concerned it was held that the tenants were regularly paying the rents to the Kaki people till May 1985 and as the property was sold by way of registered sale deeds dated 12-6-1985 and therefore, the Kaki people refused to receive the rents from June 1985 onwards and in fact, they informed the tenants about the transfer and purchase of the said property by the landlords. In spite of the direction of the vendors of the vendees to pay the rents to the purchasers, the tenants have raised a title dispute and filed applications seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Court. Admittedly, no rents have been paid and as the applications filed seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court were dismissed, it was held that there was wilful default in payment of rents. Admittedly, no rents have been paid and as the applications filed seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court were dismissed, it was held that there was wilful default in payment of rents. The other ground on which the landlords sought eviction was that they bonafidely require the schedule premises to commence business, as they were business people and as they did not possess any other. nonresidential premises except the schedule premises and the Rent Controller held that the landlords bona fidely require the schedule premises for their personal occupation to commence business. The other ground that the tenants have committed nuisance and therefore, they are liable to be evicted was rejected and it was held against the landlords. Further the contention of the tenants to hold that the schedule property is a Wakf property and that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition was rejected. Accordingly, all the R.C.Cs filed by the landlords were allowed on the ground that the denial of title is not bona fide, that there is wilful default in payment of rents and that the said premises is bonafidely required for the personal use of the landlords to commence business and the R.C.Cs filed by the tenants seeking permission to deposit the rents were dismissed by common order dated 27-2-1998. Against the dismissal of their petitions, the tenants preferred respective appeals in ordering eviction on the aforesaid grounds and in refusing the permission to deposit the rents under Section 9 of the Act and all the appeals have been dismissed upholding the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller. 51. As I have held that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.6 of 1994 is not maintainable, I am of the opinion that the Rent Appellate Court having considered the various contentions on re-appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the rent appeal filed by the tenants holding that the denial of title is not bona fide, therefore, the tenants are liable to be evicted as the denial of title is mala fide. Admittedly, the rents were not paid from June 1985 and as the applications seeking to deposit the rents under Section 9 of the Act were dismissed, it was held that there was wilful default in payment of rents. Admittedly, the rents were not paid from June 1985 and as the applications seeking to deposit the rents under Section 9 of the Act were dismissed, it was held that there was wilful default in payment of rents. Insofar as the bona fide requirement of the said premises to commence business is concerned, the Rent Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that the said premises is bona fidely required by the landlords to commence business. The other grounds i.e., that the tenants created nuisance and that the tenants have sub-let the schedule premises were held against the landlords. All the contentions of the plaintiff in I.A.Nos.1087 to 1122 of 2001 and I.A. Nos.512 to 547 of 2002 and I.A. Nos.266 to 301 of 2002 filed before the Rent Appellate Court in I.As claiming that the Wakf Board is the owner of the schedule property and under Section 26 of the Rent Control Act; the Wakf properties are exempted from operation of the Rent Controller, have been rejected by the Rent Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish that it is a Wakf property and, therefore, M/s. Subedar Saheb Choultry Committee is not entitled to seek any relief. It is also pertinent to note that the orders passed in the said I.As have become final and the plaintiff has not questioned the said findings. Accordingly, the Rent Appellate Court while upholding the eviction orders dismissed the rent appeals and the I.As filed by the Subedar Saheb Choultry Committee were also dismissed. As already stated the Subedar Saheb Choultry Committee has not filed any revision against the said orders of the Rent Appellate Court wherein its claim has been rejected. 52. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities below and more so when the appeal filed by purchasers has been allowed holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish its title and that the plaintiff never exercised its right to manage the schedule property as Wakf property from 1920 till the date of filing of the suit in 1994 and as the schedule property ceased to be a Wakf property as per the judgments under Exs.B3, B4 and B6 as observed above, I do not see any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders under revision. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.