Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is directed against the order dated December 8, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal in Suit No.7 of 2005 thereby dismissing the said suit against the defendants. The short fact is that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit being Suit No.7 of 2005 before the Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal for declaration and other consequential reliefs. According to the plaint case, Mir Mamtaj Ali created a Wakf Estate in the name of Mir Mamtaj Ali Wakf Estate and the said Wakf Estate was enrolled under the E.C. No.4959 & 4959A with the Office of the Wakf Board, Calcutta and the plaintiff is the Mutawalli of such Estate. The Board asked the petitioner to furnish information about the Wakf properties for assessment of the Wakf fund contribution. The petitioner submitted the information accordingly by two letters dated November 6, 1995 and November 13, 1995. He also submitted returns for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97. In spite of that, the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Wakfs issued a notice dated May 21, 1997 and as such, the petitioner was compelled to file the said suit. The defendants / opposite parties herein are contesting the suit by filing two separate written statements denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge, upon analysis of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that in the instant suit, both the parties got opportunities to place their respective contentions over the matter in dispute. The learned Trial Judge analyzed the evidence on record and lastly, concluded that Mir Mamtaj Ali dedicated his properties by four registered deeds of Wakf. The guidelines were given in the said deeds of wakf as to the line of succession of the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate. Subsequently, the wakf properties were divided into three divisions and they were enrolled under the E.C. Nos.7517, 4959 & 4959A. Thereafter, the properties under the E.C. No.4959A had been merged with the properties under the E.C. No.4959. The guidelines were given in the said deeds of wakf as to the line of succession of the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate. Subsequently, the wakf properties were divided into three divisions and they were enrolled under the E.C. Nos.7517, 4959 & 4959A. Thereafter, the properties under the E.C. No.4959A had been merged with the properties under the E.C. No.4959. Thus, I find that at present the properties of Mir Mamtaj Ali Wakf Estate had been categorized under the two E.C. Nos.7517 & 4959. The properties bearing the E.C. No.4959 are the properties of the plaintiff / petitioner herein and Idris Ahmed is the Mutawalli of the plaintiff’s Wakf Estate. But the defendant no.2 is the Mutawalli of the wakf properties which have been categorized under the E.C. No.7517. The properties mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint are not the properties covered under the E.C. No.4959 and as such, the plaintiff was not declared to have any right, title and interest over the ‘B’ Schedule property. The learned Trial Judge has analyzed the evidence on record in details and thus, he has come to the conclusion that the properties described in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint cannot be treated as properties of plaintiff covering the same under the E.C. No.4959. The P.W.1 who is the Mutawalli of the plaintiff, has admitted in his deposition that the defendant no.2 is the Mutawalli of the properties included in the E.C. No.7517 in part and that the exhibited documents, e.e., Exhibit Nos. M to U show that the defendant no.2 is the Mutawalli in respect of the ‘B’ Schedule properties. Therefore, this is an admission on the part of the plaintiff with respect to the ‘B’ Schedule properties. The materials on record prove that the ‘B’ schedule properties are not included under the E.C. No.4959. It may be noted herein that against the order of the Tribunal, no appeal lies under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and a revision lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A revisional court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot act as an appellate authority with regard to the matter before it. He cannot even come on a different conclusion on the basis of evidence on record provided, the findings of the Tribunal does not suffer from perversity. A revisional court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot act as an appellate authority with regard to the matter before it. He cannot even come on a different conclusion on the basis of evidence on record provided, the findings of the Tribunal does not suffer from perversity. In the instant suit, the learned Tribunal has analyzed the evidence and then, he has come to a finding. His findings do not suffer from perversity at all, but based on the evidence. So, in exercising the revisional jurisdiction, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. In coming to such conclusion, I have also considered the decision of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 referred to by the learned advocate for the opposite party no.2. In the result, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional application fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.