Judgment :- Common Order: 1(a) CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 has been directed (by the 1st defendant) against the Judgment in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Tribunal). 1(b) CRP.NPD.No.2155 has been directed (by D3 in O.S.No.3329 of 1990) against the Judgment in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 on the file of the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Tribunal under the Wakf Act). 1(c) CRP.NPD.No.2384 of 2001 was preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5699 of 1992 against the Judgment in O.S.No.5699 of 1992 on the file of the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai(Special Tribunal under the Wakf Act). 1(d) CRP.NPD.No.1961 of 2001 was preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8039 of 1998, who is also D1 in O.S.No.3329 of 1990, against the Judgment in O.S.No.8039 of 1989 on the file of the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Tribunal under the Wakf Act). 1(e) CRP.PD.No.77 of 2004 was preferred against the order in M.P.No.527 of 1995 in RCA.No.512 of 1994 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority). This CRP has been preferred by the tenant against the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.2155 of 2001 / D3 in O.S.No.3329 of 1990. 2. CRP.NPD.No.1961 of 2001:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.8039 of 1998 Irfana Begum had filed the said suit against the Tamil Nadu Wakf Borad, Mohamed Sultan Hussain & Mohamed Azam Papa for declaration as to the effect that Door No.60, Theetharappa Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5, absolutely belong to late Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib, the husband of the plaintiff, who had executed a deed of wokf of Wakf-Alal-Aulad with regard to the said property for the benefit of himself and settlee. The Wakf created by the plaintiffs husband is a private Wakf and at the time of execution of the said wakf deed, the plaintiff had not married Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib. Under the document No.2677/83 the plaintiffs husband appointed himself as the first Mutawalli and nominaed one Mr.Azam Papa to succeed as Mutawalli after his life time. The said Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib executed a rectification deed on 7. 1984 thereby including one A.S.Khader Ahamed under registered Document No.2096/84. Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib finding the above said persons as not worhty, on 22. 1985 executed a revocation deed revoking the nomination of the above said two persons under Document No.250/85. The said Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib executed a rectification deed on 7. 1984 thereby including one A.S.Khader Ahamed under registered Document No.2096/84. Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib finding the above said persons as not worhty, on 22. 1985 executed a revocation deed revoking the nomination of the above said two persons under Document No.250/85. He appointed this plaintiff as the Mutawalli, under document No.640/89 dated 112. 1989. Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib died on 12. 1990. The plaintiff has taken possession of the property as Mutawalli and has been enjoying the property and collecting rents from the tenants and doing Fathias as directed by her late husband. The above said persons, Asam Papa, Kader Ahmed Shakeer, and Md.Sultan Hussain have given lots of trouble to theplaitnfif and her tenants. They had also taken proceedings in the Wakf Board. But the Wakf Board has also recognized her right to the property. The Wakf created by the plaintiffs husband late Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib is a private Wakf. Hence, this suit. 2(a) The 1st defendant in his written statement would contend that the suit is not maintainable as no statutory notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act 1995 was issued prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff has suppressed all the previous legal proceedings and pending suits in respect of the same subject matter. O.S.No.3229 of 1990 and other suits are pending before the Court in respect of the subject matter of the suit. The suit is ban for non-joinder of necessary parties. The allegations that the subject wakf is a private wakf is denied. The allegation that the wakf board has no control over the subject wakf is denied. During his life itme Dr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib addressed a letter to the Wakf Board to include the plaintiff as Joint Mutawalli of the wakf. The plaintiff has also accepting the wakf Boards control over the subject wakf filed a petition before the Wakf Board on 28.02.1990 to recognized her as Mutawalli. Based on that petition the Wakf Board enquired into the mater in which the plaintiff and other interested person in the Wakf participated. The Wakf Board after enquiry passed an order on 012. 1991 allowing the plaintiff to continue as Mutawalli of the subject Wakf. In her pleadings in O.S.No.3238 of 1990 filed by the plaintiff, she has admitted the character of the subject Wakf as pious, religious and charitable. The Wakf Board after enquiry passed an order on 012. 1991 allowing the plaintiff to continue as Mutawalli of the subject Wakf. In her pleadings in O.S.No.3238 of 1990 filed by the plaintiff, she has admitted the character of the subject Wakf as pious, religious and charitable. She has also admitted the supervisory control of the Wakf Board over the subject wakf. The Writ Petition W.P.No.4659 of 1992 filed by the interested parties against the order of the Wakf Board has been dismissed by the High Court. The plaintiff has been estopped from contending that the subject Wakf is a private Wakf. The plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the reliefs claimed in the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 2(b) The 2nd defendant in his written statement would contend that the plaintiff has already filed O.S.No.3238 of 1990, O.S.N.5126 of 1994, O.S.No.2204 of 1996 and O.S.No.6008 of 1999 for the same property claiming as Mutawalli of the Wakf to administer the Wakf properties. O.S.No.3238 of 1990 was dismissed for default on 7. 1992 and till this day no application was filed to restore the suit. Hence filing of the present suit for the same is not maintainable and the same is barred by resjudicate. There was an agreement on 212. 1985, one day before the marriage with Dr.Mohamed Ismail, wherein the object of the marriage had been clearly stated and intended to lookafter him and not to take part in any administration of the Wakf property belonging to Dr.Mohamed Isamil Wakf. It is true that Dr.Mohamed Ismail executed a private Wakf (Wakf-Alal-Aulad) and appointed Mohamed Azam Papa as Mutawalli to succeed him after his life time. Subsequently, a deed of rectification was made to include Khader Ahmed, as a co-Mutawalli along with Mohamed Azam Papa to administer the Wakf property after the life time of Dr.Mohamed Ismail and further under Document No.250 of 1983 Dr.Mohamed Ismail appointed Mothamed Azadulla, Mohamed Shamsuddin, and Mohamed Sultan Hussain, as his successor Mutawallis to administer the Wakf property, jointly and the Document No.250 of 1985, was registered with Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The Wakf had no powers of removal of the earlier Mutawalli under Law since he had not reserved such powers under his earlier document. Dr.Mohamed Ismail had no right to act beyond the terms of the Wakf Deed. The Wakf had no powers of removal of the earlier Mutawalli under Law since he had not reserved such powers under his earlier document. Dr.Mohamed Ismail had no right to act beyond the terms of the Wakf Deed. He had only reserved the powers to nominate but not reserved the power to revoke the nomination of Muthuavallis and therefore the revocations of nomination of this defendant is void. The Wakif seems to have taken such a decision under the undue influence and coercion of the plaintiff. After the marriage the plaintiff with an evil intention took away Dr.Mohamed Ismail and stay separately with him and Dr.Mohamed Ismail was entirely under the control, influence, mercy of the plaintiff due to the oldage and by exercising undue influence over the wakf and brought about the documents in her favour. The plaintiff compelled Dr.Mohamed Ismail to cancel the whole wakf and realising that cancellation of Wakf have no legal effect, forced him to cancel the appointment of earlier Mutawallis and created a document appointing her as a successor of Mutawalli. The plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Dr.Mohamed Ismail, she was already married to one Ayoop Alikhan who did not divorce her. When the marriage with Ayoop Ali Khan was in force, the second marriage with Dr.Mohamed Ismail was in competent and did not create the status of wife Dr.Mohamed Ismail. Even otherwise Dr.Mohamed Ismail divorced the plaintiff by pronouncement of Talak on 212. 1989. The plaintiff has no right to put forward any claim posing herself to be the wife of Dr.Mohamed Ismail. The plaintiff was never a Mutawalli at any point of time and she has not been in the possession and enjoyment of the property covered under the Wakf Deed. On the other hand, she went to the extent of encumbering a portion of the Wakf property on 28. 1990 and she raised a loan for a sum of Rs.75,000/-and squanded the entire amount for her personal benefit. It is denied that a summary enquiry was held by the first defendant after the death of Dr.Mohamed Ismail and on 012. 1991 the first defendant passed an impugned order in favour of the plaintiff. This defendant along with other Mutawallis filed O.S.No.5699 of 1992 and obtained an exparte decree on 212. 1993. The application filed by the first defendant to set aside the exparte decree has been dismissed. 1991 the first defendant passed an impugned order in favour of the plaintiff. This defendant along with other Mutawallis filed O.S.No.5699 of 1992 and obtained an exparte decree on 212. 1993. The application filed by the first defendant to set aside the exparte decree has been dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to claim the Mutawalliship based on the impugned order dated 012. 1991 passed by the first defendant. There is no cause of action for this suit. After the death of Wakif Dr.Moahamed Ismail on 15.02.1990, this defendant is in possession of the Wakf property, collecting rents from the tenants, paying taxes to Corporation of Chennai, paying Electricity chargers & water charges and maintaining the accounts. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 2(c) The 3rd defendant in his written statement would contend that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.3238 of 1990 was dismissed and the dismissal has become final as the plaintiff did not take any steps to restore the said suit and therefore, the present suit is barred by resjudicata. The plaintiff is a divorcee and since she has been divorced and out of possession of the property, she will not get any right under the document of nomination referred to by the plaintiff. The document relied on by her does not confer any right on her to the property. She borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/-on the security of the Wakf property. She has squandered money and she is not qualified for acting as Mutawalli. This defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 and the same is still pending. The plaintiff is not in possession of the property covered under the Wakf Deed. The plaintiff has filed several suit without any justification and with the intention of harassing the defendants and to grab at all the properties. The plaintiff has suppressed the factum of her earlier marriage with one Ayub Ali Khan is in force. The Wakif who was the first Mutawalli cannot execute a second document and change the line of Mutawalliship in the absence of reservation of such a right in the first document. The suit is bad for want of statutory notice to the first defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 2(d) On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge has framed 5 issued for trial. The suit is bad for want of statutory notice to the first defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 2(d) On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge has framed 5 issued for trial. 3. CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 and CRP.NPD.No.2155 of 2001 - O.S.No.3329 of 1990:-This is a suit for declaration, for permanent injunction and for direction. This suit was filed by one Mohammed Azam Papa and six others against Irfana Begum (plaintiff in O.S.No.8039 of 1998) and D1 & D2 in O.S.No.8039 of 1998. CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 was preferred by D1 in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 and CRP.NPD.No.2155 of 2001 was preferred by D3 in O.S.No.3329 of 1990. 3(a) The short facts in the plaint in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 are as follows:- Dr.Mohammed Ismail Sahib was the original owner of the House and premises No.1, Titaarappa Street and shops bearing Door No.60, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Chennai-5. The said Dr.Mohammed Ismail created a Wakf-Alal-Aulad on 28.07.1983 constituting himself as the 1st Mutawalli of the above said property by a Registered Document No.2677 of 1983. After his death, according to the said deed, the 1st plaintiff Mohamed Azam Papa has to become the next Mutawalli . The said settlor thereafter included the second plaintiff also as a co-Mutawalli by executing a rectification deed daed 7. 1984.. He at the age of 75 years married the first defendant mainly to help and assist him in his old age. But the first defendant was not loyal to him and she developed intimacy with Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahibs clerk, one Gopal. The first defendant swindled and misappropriated his (settlors) money. Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib after seeing and realising the evil attitude of the 1st defendant, divorced her on 212. 1989 in accordance with Muslim Law. The 1st defendant continued to stay 2 or 3 days after the divorce and in the meantime Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib fell ill and became unconscious. The 1st defendant took him and admitted in Balaji Nursing Home. The plaintiff feels that the 1st defendant would have a hand in the fall of Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib and is responsible for his abrupt death. The first defendant brought several documents in her favour by undue influence, force and coercion of Dr.Mohamed Ismail and she compelled him to cancel the appointment of earlier Mutawalli also to grab at the property. The plaintiff feels that the 1st defendant would have a hand in the fall of Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib and is responsible for his abrupt death. The first defendant brought several documents in her favour by undue influence, force and coercion of Dr.Mohamed Ismail and she compelled him to cancel the appointment of earlier Mutawalli also to grab at the property. But the cancellation of the appointment of Mutawalli under the deed is not valid and the said documents are not binding on the plaintiffs and are void in nature. Hence, the suit. 3(b) The first defendant would contend that the first defendant married Dr.Mohamed Ismail after divorcing her first husband. It is false to state that the first defendant was not honest and loyal to her husband. It is false to state that the first defendant developed illegal intimacy with one Gopal and Dr.Mohamed Ismail divorced her on 212. 1989. It is false to state that the first defendant is responsible for the accident of Dr.Mohamed Ismail and for his subsequent death. It is false to state that the first defendant obtained several favour by undue influence, force and coercion. Dr.Mohamed Ismail wanted to settle the property absolutely on her. Therefore he executed the document cancelling Wakf-Alal-Aulad on his own free will and later coming to know that such cancellation would not be valid, subsequently cancelled the appointment of earlier Mutawallies by executing necessary documents and appointed the first defendant as his successor Mutawalli of the property. Dr.Mohamed Ismail revoked the appointment of earlier Mutawalli namely the plaitniffs and also revoked the appointment of Mohamed Asadullah, Shamsuddin and Mohamed Sultan Hussain and nominated the first defendant as the Mutawalli. The first defendant and Dr.Mohamed Ismail married on 212. 1985 and lived happily together. The first defendants husband had met with an accident and was admitted in hospital. The plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit. The first defendant has taken possession of the property and managing the same as a Mutawalli. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3(c) The 3rd defendant in his written statement would contend that Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib created a Wakf-Alal-Aulak on 28.07.1983 and appointed the first plaintiff as the successor Muthavali. By rectification deed dated 7. 1984 he also nominated the second plaintiff as the joint Mutawalli. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3(c) The 3rd defendant in his written statement would contend that Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib created a Wakf-Alal-Aulak on 28.07.1983 and appointed the first plaintiff as the successor Muthavali. By rectification deed dated 7. 1984 he also nominated the second plaintiff as the joint Mutawalli. Dr.Mohamed Ismail subsequently nominated the third defendant and other two persons to succeed him as Mutawallis under Document No.250 of 1985 and under the same the 3rd defendant and other persons have taken possession of the property. It is false to state that Dr.Mohamed Ismail appointed the first defendant as the successor Mutawalli. The first defendant obtained many documents from Dr.Mohamed Ismail in her favour by undue influence, fraud and coercion. The first defendant has been divorced by Dr.Mohamed Ismail on 212. 1989 in accordance with Muslim Law. After the appointment of the third defendant and other persons as Mutawalli Dr.Mohamed Isamil did not receive any power to cancel the appointment of earlier Mutawalli in the original deed. The first defendant was not in possession and enjoyment of the property at any point of time. The first defendant filed O.S.No.3238 of 1990, which has been subsequently dismissed for default. Suppressing the same she filed O.S.No.8039 of 1998 for the same relief. The first defendants first marriage with Ayoop Ali Khan is still in force. The Wakif did not receive any power of revocation of nomination of Mutawalli under the original deed. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3(d) In the additional written statement the first defendant would contend that Dr.Mohamed Ismail cancelled the appointment of earlier Mutawallis and appointed the first defendant as a successor Mutawalli. The attempts made by the earlier Mutawalli to recognise them as joint Mutawalli is rejected by the Wakf Board. It is false to state that Dr.Mohamed Ismail divorced the first defendant in accordance with the Muslim Law. The first defendant has been looking after her husband well. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3(e) The plaintiffs 3 to 8 have filed a reply statement contending that Dr.Mohamed Isamil has noright to cancel the nomination of earlier Mutawalli. The order of the Wakf Board has been challenged in the High Court. The first defendant has been divorced by Dr.Mohamed Ismail. The first defendant is not his legal heir under law. 3(e) The plaintiffs 3 to 8 have filed a reply statement contending that Dr.Mohamed Isamil has noright to cancel the nomination of earlier Mutawalli. The order of the Wakf Board has been challenged in the High Court. The first defendant has been divorced by Dr.Mohamed Ismail. The first defendant is not his legal heir under law. Hence, the suit is to be decreed as prayed for. 3(f) In the reply statement the first plaintiff would contend that the Wakif did not reserve any right to revoke the appointment of the Mutawallis under the parent deed. The subsequent documents executed by Dr.Mohamed Ismail cancelling the appointment of plaintiff are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The subsequent documents have no legal force and will not create any right to the parties to claim right under the documents. Dr.Mohamed Ismail divorced the first defendant. The appointment of the first and the third defendant and other parties as Mutawallies are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not admitting the registration of Wakf with the Wakf Board by Dr.Mohamed Isamil. Hence, the suit is to be decreed as prayed for. 3(g) On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge has framed three issues for trial. 4. The first defendant in O.S.No.3329 of 1900 has preferred CRP.NPD.1497 of 2001. 5. CRP.NPD.No.2384 of 2001 – O.S.No.5699 of 1992. CRP.NPD.No.2384 of 2001 has been directed against O.S.No.5699 of 1992 by the plaintiff in that suit, who is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.3329 of 1990. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib and during his life time he created a Wakf-Alal-Aulad on 28.07.1983 appointing himself as the first Mutawalli. While so he executed a deed of nomination dated 28.02.1985 appointing the plaintiffs as the Mutawallies and the Beneficiaries of the property. Dr.Mohamed Ismail got married to the second defendant. Once a wakf is created he cannot revoke or cancel. Dr.Mohamed Ismail during his old age was under the control and influence of the second defendant and by practicing undue influence force and coercion she obtained certain documents in her favour thereby cancelling the appointment of earlier Mutawallis including the plaintiffs and got appointed hereself as the successor Mutawalli. The said documents are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Dr.Mohamed Ismail during his old age was under the control and influence of the second defendant and by practicing undue influence force and coercion she obtained certain documents in her favour thereby cancelling the appointment of earlier Mutawallis including the plaintiffs and got appointed hereself as the successor Mutawalli. The said documents are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The second defendant became disqualified to act as Mutawalli in view of her conduct in mortgaging the Wakf property and subsequently obtaining the loan thereunder. The second defendant with a view to grab the property got documents executed in her favour and even went to the extent of obtaining documents cancelling the Wakf. Proceedings were initiated in the wakf board to declare the second defendant as the Mutawalli and the plaintiffs also filed the petition to frame scheme for the suit property. The wakf board erroneously permitted the second defendant to continue as Mutawalli. The second defendant was not functioning as Mutawalli at any point of time and she has never been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The wakf board has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the second defendant. Wakf board has no authority to permit the second defendant to act as Mutawalli. The second defendant has been divorced by Dr.Mohamed Ismail. The Wakf Board failed to give opportunities to the plaintiffs to contest the proceedings. The Wakf Board conducted the enquiry without observing the principles of natural justice. The plaintiffs are the joint Mutawallis and are managing the suit Wakf and its property. The plaintiffs have been collecting rent from the tenants and paying taxes and maintaining the property. The defendants are not entitled to interfere with the right of the plaintiffs in managing the properties. Hence, the suit. 5(a) The second defendant in his written statement would contend that the suit is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation and also bad for not issuing the statutory notice under the Act. Dr.Mohamed Isamil created Wakf-Alal-Aulad on 28.02.1983 in respect of the suit property and appointing himself as the first Mutawalli nominated one Azam Papa as the Mutawalli to succeed him after his life time. By rectification deed dated 7. 1984 he included Khader Ahamed as Co-Mutawalli. Subsequently he revoked the nomination of the said two persons and nominated the plaintiffs as Mutawallis. By rectification deed dated 7. 1984 he included Khader Ahamed as Co-Mutawalli. Subsequently he revoked the nomination of the said two persons and nominated the plaintiffs as Mutawallis. Later he revoked the nomination of the plaintiffs and appointed the defendant to act as Mutawalli. After his death the plaintiffs and other persons filed a petition before the Wakf board to recognise them as joint-Mutawalli. The second defendant also presented a petition and after hearing the claims of both parties the Wakf Board upheld the claim of the defendant to act as Mutawalli. The order of the Wakf Board is valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The allegation that this defendant attempted to obtain document in her favour by exercising undue influence fraud and coercion is false. The allegation that this defendant created documents revoking the appointment of earlier Mutawallis is also false. It is false to state that he defendant mortgaged the property and obtained loan. The allegation that Dr.Mohamed Isamil divorced this defendant is false. It is false to state that this defendant has not taken possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiffs have no right over the property, to act as Mutawalli. They have no right to administer the Wakf property. The suit has been filed without any cause of action to by-pass the order of the wakf board. The suit is not maintainable. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5(b) The 3rd defendant filed a written statement contending that he has filed a writ petition against the order passed by the first defendant allowing the second defendant to continue as Mutawalli. The suit O.S.No.3238 of 1990 filed by the second defendant has been dismissed for default and till date no petition has been filed to restore the suit. The suit O.S.No.3329 of 1990 filed by the defendant is pending disposal. The defendant is in management of the Wakf and has appointed the third defendant to take charge of the Wakf property as joint Mutawalli with him to administer the wakf property and perform the charities as per Wakfnama. Thes second defendant is not a Mutawalli of the Wakf property created by Dr.Mohamed Ismail. There is no power in the Wakf deed enabling the Wakif to cancel the document and execute a fresh deed in favour of any other person. Thes second defendant is not a Mutawalli of the Wakf property created by Dr.Mohamed Ismail. There is no power in the Wakf deed enabling the Wakif to cancel the document and execute a fresh deed in favour of any other person. The cancellation of the Mutawallis and the appointment of fresh Mutawalli is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. The various documents executed by the Wakif subsequent to the document dated 28.07.1983 are non-est in law. The possession of the property is in the hands of the third plaintiff as joint Mutawalli. Hence, the suit may be disposed of in the light of the above contentions. 5(c) In the reply statement the third plaintiff would contend that the second defendant does not come under the category of Alal-Aulad. Her marriage with Dr.Mohamed Ismail when her husband Ayoop Ali Khan is alive was null and void. Even otherwise she had been divorced by Dr.Mohamed Ismail in accordance with the Muslim Law. The funeral of Dr.Mohamed Ismail was conducted by the third plaintiff and Mohamed Azam Papa as per the last wishes of the Wakif. The second defendant has got up serveral documents when the Wakif was in indifferent health and the documents were obtained by exercising undue influence and domination. The plaintiffs took charge of the Wakf property after the death of Mohamed Isamil and administering and managing the properties. The second defendant was never in possession of the property. The dismissal of the suit O.S.No.3238 of 1990 will bar the second defendant from raising the same allegations levelled in the suit. Hence, the suit has to be decreed as prayed for. 5(d) On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge has framed 5 issued and 3 additional issues for trial. 6. The plaintiff in O.S.No.5699 of 1992, who is D3 in O.S.No.3329 of 1990, has filed CRP.NPD.No.2155 of 2001. 7. CRP.PD.No.77 of 2004:- CRP.PD.No.77 of 2004 was preferred against the order passed in M.P.No.527 of 2001 in RCA.No.512 of 1994. The said application was filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act for directing the tenant viz., Mohamed Rahimudeen to pay the arrears of rent for the period from February-1990 to March 1991 amounting to Rs.1,820/-. The said application was filed by the land lord Mohamed Sulthan Hussain. The said application was filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act for directing the tenant viz., Mohamed Rahimudeen to pay the arrears of rent for the period from February-1990 to March 1991 amounting to Rs.1,820/-. The said application was filed by the land lord Mohamed Sulthan Hussain. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.14,690/- towards arrears of rent for the period from September-1995 to November-2008 on or before 112. 2008. Against the said order, the respondent had preferred this CRP.PD.No.77 of 2004. 8. The above said suits were tried along with O.S.5126 of 1994 and O.S.No.6008 of 1996 by the learned First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who had dismissed O.S.No.5126 of 1994 and O.S.No.6008 of 1996, against which there is no CRPs have been preferred, and has also dismissed O.S.No.8039 of 1998, O.S.No.5699 of 1992 and has decreed O.S.No.3329 of 1990. 9. Now the points for determination in these Civil Revision Petitions are as follows:- 1) Where the Wakf Deed - Ex.B.6 executed by one Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib dated 28.07.1983 is valid, and under which the plaintiff Mohamed Azam Papa is entitled to the declaration, as held by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 is liable to be set aside as contended by the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 or whether the revision petitioners in CRP.NPD.Nos.1961, 2384 & 2155 of 2001, had derived any right under Ex.B.7 and under Ex.A.4 deed of revocation? 2) Whether the order in M.P.No.527 of 1994 in RCA.No.512 of 1994 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revision in CRP.PD.No.77 of 2004? 10. Point Nos.1 & 2:- Ex.B.6 is dated 28.07.1983 executed by Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib in respect of Door No.60, Picraft Road, Triplicane, Chennai-5, which comprises of premises No.1, Theetharappan Street, in R.S.Nos.743/1 and 743/2. After executing Ex.B.6 (registration deed of Wakf-Alal-Aulad) the said Wakif Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib had executed Ex.B.7. Under Ex.B.6 dated 27. 10. Point Nos.1 & 2:- Ex.B.6 is dated 28.07.1983 executed by Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib in respect of Door No.60, Picraft Road, Triplicane, Chennai-5, which comprises of premises No.1, Theetharappan Street, in R.S.Nos.743/1 and 743/2. After executing Ex.B.6 (registration deed of Wakf-Alal-Aulad) the said Wakif Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib had executed Ex.B.7. Under Ex.B.6 dated 27. 1983 Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib had created a Wakf appointing him as the beneficiary No.1 and his son Monhamed Azam Papa and his children has beneficiary No.2 in respect of 2/3rd of the income derived from the said properties and 1/3rd of the income is dedicated for the benefit of poor and for religious and pious charitable purposes. Mohamed Azam Papa on the basis of Ex.B.6 filed O.S.No.3329 of 1990 which was decreed in his favour for declaration that he is the Muthawali of the said wakf property and for permanent injunction against the defendant in that suit restraining them from interfering with the management of the wakf property and also a direction was given to the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to recognize and appoint the plaintiff as the Muthawali of the Wakf, "Wakf-Alal-Aulad". 10(a) The learned counsel appearing for the revision Petition in CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 would contend that the Wakif viz., Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib had every right to execute Ex.B.7, thereby revoking the earlier deed of Wakf executed by him under Ex.B.6 dated 27. 1983. Accordingly to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 under Ex.B.7 the Wakif had only nominated his cousin brother Mohamed Asathulla, his nephew Mohamed Sulthan and his son-in-law Mohamed Sulthan Husin as existing muthawali to carry out and perform the function as set out in Ex.B.6 dated 28.07.1983 and a document No.2096/1984 dated 7. 1984, which was not exhibited in the above said suit. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that Ex.B.7 is testamentary in nature and it will come into effect only after the death of Wakif viz., Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib and hence would contend that the learned trial Judge has erroneously come to a conclusion that Ex.B.6-deed of wakf cannot be revoked by the Wakif since there is no provision made in Ex.B.6-deed of wakf to revoke or cancel the same. 10(b) This argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was meeted out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Thiru T.V.Ramanujam by referring to Section 227 of the Mohamedan Law wherein the principle adumbrated is as follows:- "Removal of Mutawalli _ A mutawalli may be removed from his office- .(a) by the wakif in the deed of wakf he has reserved for himself a power to do so; or .(b) by the Court in accordance with Section 229." In Mullas Principles of Mohamedan Law (19th edition -Lexis Nexis Butterworths -at page 159) the principle laid down for revocation of wakf runs as follows:- "Revocation of Wakf_ (1) A testamentary wakf, that is a wakf made by will, may be revoked by the wakif (dedicator) at any time before his death. (2) Where at the time of creating a non-testamentary wakf, the wakif reserves to himself the power of revoking the wakf, the wakf is invalid." Admittedly Ex.B.6 is a non-testamentary wakf created by the wakif Dr.Mohamed Ismail Sahib under Ex.B.6. The exact recital on which reliance is being placed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.1497 of 2001 runs as follows:- "Now this indenture witness that the Wakif doth hereby dedicate the said property and declare the same as Wakf, which is more particularly described in the schedule hereunder, and hereafter referred to as the Wakf property, which he is allowed to do under the provisions of Mohamedan Law and the Tamil Nadu Musalman Wakf Act and convey the same to himself, in his capacity as the first Muthavalli thereof, having full powers to nominate his successor." Apart from the above said recital that he has "full powers to nominate" his successor, there is absolutely no reservation made to himself (wakif) to cancel or revoke the said wakf, find a place in Ex.B.6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that unless there is a specific reservation clause made in Ex.B.6 by the Wakif to cancel or revoke the deed of wakf under Ex.B.6, he cannot thereafter execute Ex.B.7 for the purpose of revoking the Mutawalli appointed by him under Ex.B.6 or to nominate any new Muthawalli under Ex.B.7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that unless there is a specific reservation clause made in Ex.B.6 by the Wakif to cancel or revoke the deed of wakf under Ex.B.6, he cannot thereafter execute Ex.B.7 for the purpose of revoking the Mutawalli appointed by him under Ex.B.6 or to nominate any new Muthawalli under Ex.B.7. The learned Senior Counsel in support of this contention has placed his reliance on a ratio of the Honourable Apex Court in AIR 1998 SC 2986 = 1998(6) SCC 267 (Trustees of Sahebzadi Oalia Kulsum Trust Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, A.P.). The facts of the said case is that, a Wakf Alal Aulad was executed by a wakif wherein wakf property was dedicated in perpetuity for the benefit of settlors children and their children and ultimately for the maintenance of a holy shrine. On his death, the property was not construed to be the estate of the settlor. The ratio decidendi of the above said case runs as follows:- "In the light of the principals of Mohammedan law as set out earlier, the two Trusts created in 1953 in the present case are valid wakfs. The wakif-settlor made a dedication in perpetuity of the subject-mater of these Trusts for purposes, which are considered pious under Islamic law. The properties, therefore, ceased to be the properties of the settlor on the creation of the wakfs in 1953. When the settlor died in 1967, they could not form a part of his estate (the settlor having divested himself of these properties fourteen years prior to his death. The appellant has also pointed out that during the lifetime of the settlor, the Income Tax authorities had accepted the validity of the wakfs and had not treated the income of the wakfs as the income of the settlor." For the same proposition of law the learned senior counsel would rely on AIR 1954 ALLahabad 362 -Vol 41, C.N.164 (Khalil Ahamad Khan, Vs. Malka Mehar Nigar Begum and others), wherein the exact dictum relevant for the purpose of deciding these revisions is as follows:- "Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the correct position under the Mohammedan Law has been misunderstood by the learned Judges and, where by a subsequent deed the wakif has merely chagned a testamentary provision about the appointment of a mutawalli, the subsequent deed is valid and the provisions of Mohammedan Law relied on in Mst.Rahimans case (A) were applicable only to cases where the wakif had removed Mutawalli who had already entered upon his office and in such a case the Wakif may not be entitled to remove him unless he has reserved the power of such a removal. Learned counsel has, however, admitted that it is not open to a wakif to amend the wakf deed itself by changing its provisions and, if by the second deed he has attempted to change the nature or character of the wakf, and that portion is not separable from the portion relating to the change of the mutawalli, then the second deed must be held to be invalid." The same principle has been reiteratated in AIR 1953 Madras 958 -Vol 40 C.N.386 (Shaik Masthan Sahib Vs. Palayant Balarami Reddi), as follows:- "When once it is held that the appellant was the legally appointed Mutawalli in place of the founder himself and that he was functioning as such trustee by virtue of the said appointment, the question then arises as to the circumstances in which the appellant could be held to have ceased to be such mutawalli or trustee, if such was ever the case. The evidence does not show that he has at any time or in any manner abandoned or refused to perform the duties of a Mutawalli having been appointed under the said document Ex.C. On the other hand, his claim is that he has been continuing in possession of the management of the mosque and its properties until 1933, when the wakif executed another document, Ex.I, in favour of the respondent appointing him as the trustee. If the appellant has been in possession of the properties belonging to the wakf and has been in such management having entered into the office by a valid and legal appointment and if he has neither abandoned nor refused to perform the duties of such trusteeship, the question that arises for consideration is whether another trustee could be appointed when the appellant himself was the trustee. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that by appointment of the respondent under the document Ex.I it must be presumed that the appellant had been removed from his office as trustee and that the respondent had been validly appointed in his stead. If it is a question of removal of the appellant from his office as trustee, then it must be proved that the wakif had the right to remove the appellant from his office as trustee and that he had been actually so removed in a proper and legal manner. As has been observed in paragraph 213 of Mullas Mohamedan law at page 200, a mutawalli may be removed by the Court on proof of misfeasance or breach of trust or if it is found that he is otherwise unfit to hold the office, even though the founder may have expressly directed that he should not be removed in any case. The founder has no power after delivery of possession to remove a mutawalli in any case, unless he has expressly reserved such a power in the original deed of Wakf or in the subsequent deed which he executed in favour of the appellant. Viz., Ex.C. Our attention has not been drawn to any recitals in the original deed, Ex.III or in the subsequent deed, Ex.C, that such a power existed enabling the wakif to remove the mutawalli who had been validly appointed and who had been performing his duties as such, nor has there been any evidence let in to show that there has been any breach of trust or any misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of the appellant to justify his removal." At this juncture it is to be noted that the learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board has also represented that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3329 of 1990, viz. Mohamed Azam Papa has been regularly submitting the accounts for the Wakf property to the Wakf Board without any default and there is any misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of him. Further, a vested right on the plaintiff in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 under Ex.B.6 cannot be divested under Ex.B.7 that too without any reservation under Ex.B.6 for revoking or cancelling the deed of wakf under Ex.B.6, by Wakif. 10(c) Yet another ratio relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in support of the said contention is AIR 1932 Allahabad 248 (Abdul Waha Vs. Mt.Sughra Begum), wherein it has been held by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court as follows:- "It is obvious that, if a provision is expressly made in the deed of wakf, it is not open to the wakif to revoke it, or to derogate from it. But if he has deliberately deferred making provision on a particular subject to a future date and does make such provision, such provision should be considered to be part and parcel of the deed itself. But if he has deliberately deferred making provision on a particular subject to a future date and does make such provision, such provision should be considered to be part and parcel of the deed itself. As regards the contention that is open to a subsequent mutawalli to reduce the amount fixed by the wakif, we are clearly of opinion that, if the pay or pension was made a valid object of the wakf, as we think it is in the present case, it is not open to any mutawalli to interfere with it." Under such circumstances, after meticulously going through the evidence let in before him in the above said suits the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff in O.S.No.3329 of 1990 (setlee in Ex.B.6) is entitled to the relief asked for in the plaint and the plaintiff in O.S.No.5699 of 1992, who is D3 in O.S.No.3329 of 1990, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.8039 of 1998, who is the first defendant in O.S.No.3329 of 1990, are not entitled to any relief in the suits filed by them respectively, and has decreed O.S.No.3329 of 1990 and dismissed O.S.No.5699 of 1992 and O.S.No.8039 of 1998 along with the other two suits O.S.Nos.5126 of 1994 and O.S.No.6008 of 1996, and has also correctly held that under M.P.No.527 of 1995 in RCA.No.512 of 1994, the tenant in the suit property is liable to deposit the rent due to the credit of RCA in the Court since the point who is the Muthawali is to be decided in these revisions. The setlee under Ex.B.6 is the Muthawali of the wakf created under Ex.B.6, who is entitled to receive the above said arrears of rent in court deposit and to utilize the same in terms of Ex.B.6. Points are answered accordingly. 11. In fine, CRP.NPD.No.1497, 1961, 2155 & 2384 of 2001 and CRP.NPD.No.77 of 2004 are dismissed confirming the judgment in O.S.No.3329 of 1990, O.S.No.5699 of 1992 and O.S.No.8039 of 1998 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Tribunal) and the order passed in M.P.No.527 of 1995 in RCA.No.512 of 1994 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority). No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.