JUDGMENT:- 1. Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D) No.1607 of 2010, is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2010, passed in O.S.No.75 of 2001, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. 2. Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D) No.2916 of 2010, is filed against the order, dated 17.02.2010, passed in I.A.No.51 of 2010, in O.S.No.75 of 2001, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. 3. Both the Revision Petitions, viz., C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1607 & 2916 of 2010, are filed by the third defendant/Muthavalli in the suit in O.S.No.75 of 2001. 4. Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D) No.2320 of 2010 is filed by the defendants 1 and 2, against the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2010, passed in O.S.No.75 of 2001, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. 5. As the parties in all the Revision Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned, all these Revision Petitions were heard together and a common order is pronounced. 6. Originally, the first respondent/Municipality filed the suit in O.S.No.75 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, on 30.03.2001. The said plaint was returned, on 02.04.2001, stating that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the plaint was re-presented before the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, on 03.04.2001. 7. The said suit was filed by the first respondent/Municipality, against the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chief Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Muthavalli of Larabsha Dharga and Mr.Vijayaganapathy. The original prayer in the suit was for the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiff, viz., the first respondent herein has got title over the suit property, for the relief of declaration, declaring that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, in R.C.No.3273/B4/98, dated 29.09.1999, signed on 19.11.1999, is illegal, null and void and also for the relief of injunction. 8. The case of the first respondent/Municipality in the original plaint was that, the properties mentioned in the suit are classified as 'Latrine Poramboke' and 'Vaikkal Poramboke' and the said properties are situate, within the Panruti Municipal limit. 8. The case of the first respondent/Municipality in the original plaint was that, the properties mentioned in the suit are classified as 'Latrine Poramboke' and 'Vaikkal Poramboke' and the said properties are situate, within the Panruti Municipal limit. Therefore, the first respondent/Municipality has got right to maintain those properties for public purpose and the suit properties also vested with the Panruti Municipality and the Revenue Records would prove that the properties belonged to the Panruti Municipality and the first respondent/Municipality also constructed a shopping complex in the suit properties. During the year 1997, the Muthavalli of Larabsha Dharga issued a notice, claiming that the properties belong to Larabsha Dharga, and they are Wakf properties and the Chief Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board also passed an order, directing the first respondent/Municipality to handover possession of the properties in favour of the Larabsha Dharga and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration, that the first respondent has got title over the suit properties and for declaration, declaring that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, dated 29.09.1999, is illegal, null and void. 9. During the pendency of the suit before the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, the first respondent/Municipality filed I.A.No.718 of 2004, to implead the District Collector, Cuddalore, as the sixth defendant in the suit and that was allowed, by order dated 10.11.2004. Thereafter, the first respondent/Municipality filed I.A.No.719 of 2004, for amendment of the plaint, by changing the Forum from the Civil Court to Wakf Tribunal and to substitute the first prayer, viz., declaration prayer, stating that the State Government is the absolute owner of the suit properties and the first respondent/Municipality has got right to maintain the suit properties for public purpose and that Application was allowed, by order, dated 10.11.2004. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for filing written statement by the District Collector, who was impleaded as the sixth defendant in the suit. The District Collector, sent a letter to the Government Pleader's Office, on 08.12.2004, stating that he is in no way connected with the suit and therefore, requested the Government Pleader, to exonerate him from the array of parties in the suit. The District Collector, sent a letter to the Government Pleader's Office, on 08.12.2004, stating that he is in no way connected with the suit and therefore, requested the Government Pleader, to exonerate him from the array of parties in the suit. As the District Collector did not file any written statement, he was set ex parte and therefore, an Application was filed in I.A.No.51 of 2010, by the Tahsildar, Panruti, to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the District Collector and to permit the District Collector, to file written statement. That Application was allowed, by order, dated 17.02.2010, and the written statement filed by the Tahsildar was taken on file. Earlier to that, an Application in I.A.No.226 of 2009, was filed, to implead the Tahsildar, as necessary party and that Application was dismissed, by order dated 02.12.2009. Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence and pleadings, the Court below decreed the suit, as prayed for, by a judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2010, and the said judgment and decree, is challenged by the defendants 1 to 3 in C.R.P.Nos.1607 and 2320 of 2010 and the third defendant has challenged the order passed in I.A.No.51 of 2010, in O.S.No.75 of 2001, by filing C.R.P.No.2916 of 2010. 10. Mr.V. Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, contended that the Court below erred in allowing I.A.No.719 of 2010, filed by the first respondent/Municipality, by which, the Forum was changed from Civil Court to Wakf Tribunal, which is impermissible in law. Admittedly, the property is a Wakf property, and therefore, the suit has to be filed only before the Wakf Tribunal and admittedly, the suit was filed before the Civil Court and hence, the suit filed before the Civil Court is not maintainable. Therefore, the only recourse that was available to the first respondent/Municipality was to seek the leave of the Court to withdraw the suit, for proper presentation before the Wakf Tribunal and to file a fresh application before the Wakf Tribunal and that cannot be done by filing Application for amendment. 11. The learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, further submitted that the declaration relief in respect of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, directing the first respondent/Municipality to handover possession of the property as illegal, null and void, it is barred by Article 100 of the Limitation Act. 11. The learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, further submitted that the declaration relief in respect of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, directing the first respondent/Municipality to handover possession of the property as illegal, null and void, it is barred by Article 100 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel further contended that the present prayer, after the amendment, seeking for declaration that the suit property belongs to the Government and the first respondent/plaintiff has got right to maintain the same for public purpose, is also not maintainable, having regard to the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 12. In addition to the above three technical aspects, the learned counsel for the Wakf Board also elaborately argued about the title of the properties in favour of Larabsha Dharga and contended that the Court below erred in holding that the property belongs to the Government. 13. Per contra, Mr. C. Jayaraman, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent/Municipality, submitted that the Principal Subordinate Court is also a Wakf Tribunal, and, though the suit was filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, after having realized that the suit ought to have been filed before the Wakf Tribunal, as the Wakf Board claims the properties as its properties, Application for amendment was filed to change the Forum, and that was allowed and that order was not challenged by the Wakf Board and they also participated in the suit proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the revision petitioners to challenge the transfer of the suit from the Civil Court to the Wakf Tribunal, by stating that the order passed in I.A.No.719 of 2004, is illegal, having regard to the fact that the Wakf Tribunal and the Principal Subordinate Court are one and the same, the main objection raised by the revision petitioners cannot be entertained at this stage. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent/Municipality, further submitted that the prayer for declaration, that the order passed by the second defendant, viz., the Chief Executive Officer, declaring that the properties are the Wakf properties and the plaintiff/first respondent/Municipality has encroached upon the property, is patently illegal and before passing that order, no opportunity was afforded to the first respondent/Municipality to put forth their defence. Therefore, the order passed by the second defendant was against the principles of natural justice and it is void ab initio and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and there is no period of limitation for setting aside the order, which is void ab initio and therefore, it is not barred under Article 100 of the Limitation Act. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, further contended that the prayer for declaration that the Government has got title over the suit properties, and the first respondent/Municipality has got right to maintain the same for public purpose, is also maintainable, as the first respondent/Municipality is interested in maintaining the properties and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be entertained. The learned Senior Counsel also elaborately argued on merits and submitted that the suit properties are described as 'Latrine Poramboke' and 'Vaikkal Poramboke' in the Revenue Records, and therefore, the properties belonged to the Government. Therefore, the Court below has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the first respondent/Municipality and the judgment and decree passed by the Court below calls for no interference. 16. Heard both sides. 17. As I have decided to dispose of the Revision Petitions on the basis of the technical objections raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, as stated above, I am not going into the details of the factual aspects, as to whether the suit properties belongs to the Larabsha Dharga or it belongs to the Government. 18. As stated supra, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners was that, the suit properties are Wakf properties and therefore, suit has to be filed only before the Wakf Tribunal. Admittedly, the first respondent/Municipality has filed the suit before the Civil Court, which is not competent to decide the same. Therefore, the only remedy available to the first respondent/Municipality is to seek leave of the Court, to withdraw the suit from the Civil Court, for proper presentation before the Wakf Tribunal and to file a fresh Petition before the Wakf Tribunal and that cannot be done by filing an application for amendment. 19. According to me, the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners appears to be correct. Admittedly, the suit was filed before the Civil Court, Panruti. 19. According to me, the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners appears to be correct. Admittedly, the suit was filed before the Civil Court, Panruti. Later on, it was transferred to another Civil Court, Cuddalore and the suit was pending before the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore. There is no dispute with regard to that aspect. As a matter of fact, in the original plaint also, it was stated that, to get the declaration from the Civil Court, suit was filed and therefore, the first respondent/Municipality was conscious of the fact that the suit has to be filed only before the Civil Court and also filed a suit before the Civil Court. 20. The Wakf Tribunals are constituted for determination of any dispute, question, or other matters, relating to a Wakf or a Wakf property and the Wakf Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all those powers, as may be exercised by a Civil Court and the provisions of C.P.C., and the Wakf Tribunal has also got power to such procedure, as may be prescribed, notwithstanding, anything contained in C.P.C. It is made clear from the provisions of Section 83 (1) (5) and (6) of the Wakf Act. 21. Further, as per 83 (7) and of the Wakf Act, the decision of the Wakf Tribunal shall be final and it shall have the force of a decree, as made by a Civil Court, and the decision of the Wakf Tribunal can be executed by a Civil Court, to which, such decision is sent for execution, as per Section 83 (viii) of the Wakt Act. As per Section 83 (9), no appeal shall lie against the decision or order of the Tribunal and the High Court, either on its own motion or on the application of the Board, or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records, relating to any dispute, question or other matter, which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself, as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such order, as it may think fit. 22. 22. Therefore, a reading of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, makes it clear that the Wakf Tribunal, constituted under the Wakf Act is not a Civil Court and is a persona designata and it is only deemed to be a Civil Court and the Tribunal can also follow such procedures, as may be prescribed, notwithstanding, anything contained in C.P.C. It is also admitted that the Principal Subordinate Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu are designated as Wakf Tribunals. Therefore, the Wakf Tribunals are separate legal entities from the Civil Court and the Wakf Tribunal is a persona designata. 23. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, that the suit, originally filed before the Civil Court, cannot be converted to be a petition filed in the Wakf Tribunal, by filing an application for amendment When two Forums are separate and independent and when proceedings are initiated before one Forum, which has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, the proper remedy available to a person, who instituted the suit before that Forum is to get the leave of the Forum for withdrawing the proceedings for proper presentation before the appropriate Forum and thereafter, the person can file a fresh Petition before the Competent Forum. Further, the Forum cannot be changed by filing an Application for amendment and the Court below erred in allowing the Application for amendment and therefore, the transfer of the suit from the Civil Court, viz., Principal Subordinate Court to Wakf Tribunal , by virtue of the order passed in I.A.No.719 of 2004, is illegal. 24. The contention of the first respondent/Municipality, that the revision petitioners having not filed any Revision Petition against the order passed in I.ANo.719 of 2004, and having participated in the proceedings initiated before the Wakf Tribunal, is estopped from questioning the same, cannot be accepted, as there is no question of estoppel against the Statute and when the initiation of proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal is declared to be illegal, viz., by transferring the suit from the Civil Court to the Wakf Tribunal, the same can be challenged in a Revision and the participation by the revision petitioners will not estopp them from challenging the same, in the Revision Petition. 25. 25. I, therefore, hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Wakf Tribunal, by reason of the order passed in I.ANo.719 of 2004 by the Civil Court is illegal and the suit pending on the file of the Civil Court cannot be converted into a Petition before the Wakf Tribunal, which is a separate legal entity, by filing an Application for amendment. 26. The next contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the prayer for declaration that the property belongs to the Government and the first respondent/Municipality has got right to maintain the same for the public purpose is not maintainable, having regard to the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. To appreciate the contention, we will have to see the provisions of Section 34 which is quoted hereunder:- ''Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right – Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person, denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief; Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief that a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. " 27. Therefore, a reading of the Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, makes it very clear that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may file a suit against any person, denying his title or character or right. Therefore, a person, who filed the suit must be entitled to such character or any right in that property and when his entitlement to the legal character or any, to that property is denied, or his title is denied, such person can file the suit. 28. Admittedly, in this case, originally, the first respondent/Municipality filed the suit averring that the property belongs to it and that prayer is perfectly valid, as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 28. Admittedly, in this case, originally, the first respondent/Municipality filed the suit averring that the property belongs to it and that prayer is perfectly valid, as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Thereafter, the first respondent/Municipality filed another application and sought for amendment of the prayer to the effect that the property belongs to the Government and gave up its right/claim over the property and after the amendment application was allowed, seeking for declaration that the Government has got title over the property, such suit cannot be maintained by the first respondent/plaintiff as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. A suit is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, only in cases, where the legal character or right to any property of the plaintiff is denied by the defendant. Therefore, the suit as framed, that the Government has got title over the property is not maintainable. When the first respondent/plaintiff has no right/title/interest over the property, it cannot maintain any suit for declaration, that the Government has got that right. 29. Further, as per Section 54 (3) of the Wakf Act, when any order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board, that the property is a Wakf property and the person in possession of the property is an encroacher and directed the encroacher to deliver possession of the property to the Muthawalli of the Wakf, any person aggrieved by such order, may institute a suit in a Tribunal to establish that he has right/title/interest in the land, building, space or other property. 30. Therefore, when the person challenges the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer under Section 54 (3) of the Wakf Act, he can institute the suit before the Tribunal to establish his right/title/interest over the land and he cannot seek for declaration that the other person has got right over the property. Hence, the prayer that the Government has title to the suit property is not maintainable. Consequentially, another prayer for declaration, that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is illegal, null and void is also not maintainable, as the first respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the same, without claiming any right/title on himself. Hence, the prayer that the Government has title to the suit property is not maintainable. Consequentially, another prayer for declaration, that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is illegal, null and void is also not maintainable, as the first respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the same, without claiming any right/title on himself. Hence, the suit, as framed in, is not maintainable and therefore, the Revision Petition Nos.1607 and 2320 of 2010, are allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.75 of 2001, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore are set aside. As I have held that the suit is not maintainable. I have not considered the point, regarding the period of Limitation, as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 31. Insofar as C.R.P.No.2916 of 2010, is concerned, the same has been filed by the third defendant/Muthavalli, against the order passed in I.A.No.51 of 2010, in O.S.No.75 of 2001. As stated supra, after the District Collector was impleaded as the sixth defendant by virtue of the order passed in I.A.No.718 of 2004, he sent a letter to the Government Pleader's Office stating that he is not interested in the dispute and requested the Government Pleader to exonerate him from the array of parties in the suit and he also did not file any written statement. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, filed an application in I.A.No.266 of 2009, to get himself impleaded as necessary party and that was also dismissed. Nevertheless, an Application was filed in I.ANo.51 of 2010, sworn to by the Tahsildar to set aside the ex parte decree, passed against the District Collector and having regard to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.51 of 2010, it is made clear that the affidavit was filed by the Tahsildar in his capacity as Tahsildar and not on behalf of the District Collector. The Tahsildar has stated in the affidavit that he is the petitioner and the sixth defendant in the suit, which is patently false. When the party, did not want to contest the suit, his Subordinates cannot file any Application in his own right to set aside that order and without properly appreciating the same, the Court below allowed the application and set aside the ex parte decree passed against the District Collector. When the party, did not want to contest the suit, his Subordinates cannot file any Application in his own right to set aside that order and without properly appreciating the same, the Court below allowed the application and set aside the ex parte decree passed against the District Collector. Further, the written statement was filed only by the Tahsildar and he also verified the same, as if, he is the sixth defendant in the suit. 32. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Application filed in I.ANo.51 of 2010, by the Tahsildar is not competent and legal, and the Tahsildar has no right to file any Application, as if, he is the sixth defendant and hence, the order passed by the Court below in allowing the Application, by setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the District Collector is illegal. Hence, C.R.P.No.2916 of 2010, is also allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.51 of 2010, in O.S.No.75 of 2001, is set aside. 33. In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.