JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no. 1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity) alongwith its Chief Executive Officer, challenging order dated 18.9.2008 by which the learned Munsif-I, Gaya, rejected their intervention application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded in Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 for eviction of the sole defendant-opposite party no. 2 on the ground of her bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises, which she had purchased from Bibi Zubaida Khatoon by a registered sale deed dated 12.2.2004 on the basis of which her name was mutated and receipts were being regularly granted to her by the Corporation. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid eviction suit the petitioners filed the aforesaid intervention application on 5.3.2008 claiming that the suit property was a waqf property dedicated by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon and was registered as such with the Board and hence the Board was a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit as per the provision of Section 92 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). To the said intervention application the plaintiff filed her objection on 23.4.2008. After considering the arguments of both the parties the learned court below rejected the intervention application by its order dated 18.9.2008, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. The claim of the Board is that the suit property which was a house owned by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon and much prior to 2004 she dedicated it to the waqf for charitable purpose and since then she was the mutawalli of the suit property and for the sake of future reference she had also executed a memorandum of dedication on 5.9.2005. It is also stated that defendant- opposite party no. 2 was the tenant of the waqf estate and Bibi Zubaida Khatoon as mutawalli of the waqf estate issued rent receipt to her and after her death on 5.11.2006 one Perwez Ahmad became the mutawalli of the waqf estate and has been dealing with the said property and its tenant. It is also stated that defendant- opposite party no. 2 was the tenant of the waqf estate and Bibi Zubaida Khatoon as mutawalli of the waqf estate issued rent receipt to her and after her death on 5.11.2006 one Perwez Ahmad became the mutawalli of the waqf estate and has been dealing with the said property and its tenant. It is further stated that the said waqf estate has been registered as waqf no. 2461 on 14.8.2007 in the register of the Board showing Bibi Zubaida Khatoon as the creator of the waqf and Perwez Ahmad as its present mutawalli. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Article 183 of the Mullas Mahomedan Law (18th edition) in which it has been provided that a waqf may be made either verbally or in writing and once the waqf is created the dedicator has no right or title over the dedicated property and it will be managed by the mutawalli whose function will be governed by the Board. He also submits that Section 92 of the Act also provides that in any suit or proceeding in respect of a waqf or any waqf property the Board may appear and plead as a party to the suit or proceeding. It is also stated that waqf estate being already registered in the Board unless it is deregistered it remains a waqf property and it cannot be alienated. He further averred that Section 32 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 bars filing of any suit with regard to waqf property, hence the learned court below was not justified in rejecting their intervention application. 7. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that there is no document for the period prior to 12.2.2004 to show that Bibi Zubaida Khatoon had ever dedicated the suit property to the waqf either orally or through any document, even rent receipts executed by her, which were produced by learned counsel for the Board in court, do not show that she had received the rent on behalf of the waqf estate or as mutawalli, rather it shows that it was executed by her in her own right as the landlord. In the said circumstances, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 12.2.2004 by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon in favour of the plaintiff cannot be discarded incidentally in an eviction suit. In the said circumstances, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 12.2.2004 by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon in favour of the plaintiff cannot be discarded incidentally in an eviction suit. Furthermore, on the basis of the said sale deed the purchaser, namely plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 has been mutated in the municipal corporation and is receiving receipts on payment of taxes, etc. 8. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the memorandum of dedication of the waqf estate by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon was dated 5.9.2005 on the basis of a much earlier oral dedication by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon, but no date or month or even year of such dedication is disclosed either in any document produced by the petitioners or in the statement of facts in the revision petition or even by the learned counsel for the Board (petitioners) at the time of argument. 9. However, from the register of the Board prepared under the provision of the Act as well as the certificate of registration annexed to the civil revision petition it transpires that the said property was registered in the register of the Board on 14.8.2007 (Annexure-B to Supplementary Affidavit) when registration certificate was issued by the Board in which it was stated that house/building was dedicated by memorandum of oral waqf dated 14.2.2006 by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the record of the petitioner-Board shows that there was no oral dedication prior to 2006 and according to the registration certificate it was orally dedicated only on 14.2.2006 by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon. 10. The claim raised by the petitioners before this court th. the waqf in question is a charitable waqf is also falsified by their own document, namely Certificate of Registration dated 14.8.2007 produced by the petitioners as Annexure-B to their supplementary affidavit dated 20.8.2009, which shows that the nature of waqf was Alal Aulad and not charitable. It may also be noted in this connection that a pure waqf Alal Aulad is not included in the definition of waqf given in Section 3(r)(iii) of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the Board has got authority only over those waqfs as defined under the Act. 11. However, in any view of the matter the plaintiff-opposite party no. It may also be noted in this connection that a pure waqf Alal Aulad is not included in the definition of waqf given in Section 3(r)(iii) of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the Board has got authority only over those waqfs as defined under the Act. 11. However, in any view of the matter the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 has claimed on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 12.2.2004, whereas according to record of the petitioners including the Certificate of Registration the property was dedicated by memorandum of oral waqf dated 14.2.2006 and was recorded in the Register of Board on 14.8.2007 after the death of the dedicator on 5.11.2006. Hence it is apparent that after the sale deed dated 12.2.2004 having been executed by Bibi Zubaida Khatoon in favour of plaintiff- opposite party no.1, she had no right left in the suit property to transfer or dedicate to anyone. In the said circumstances the entries in the registers of the Board and the claim raised by the alleged mutawalli cannot have any legal bearing on the eviction suit. 12. However, if the Board or the mutawalli of the waqf estate wants to change the entries of waqf Alal Aulad in the record of the Board or wants to challenge the genuineness or otherwise of the sale deed dated 12.2.2004 it may get proper proceeding initiated before an appropriate court/authority for the purpose, but for that reason the proceeding of the instant eviction suit would not be affected. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed.