ORDER This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 02.11.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Bihar Wakf Tribunal, Patna in Title Suit No. 59/98 of 1996/2009, whereunder the aforesaid Title Suit has been dismissed holding that plaintiff has not succeeded in proving Issue No. 1 that Defendant No. 1 Devendra Prasad Sinha was managing a joint family business and in view of the finding recorded in connection with Issue No. 1 Issue No. 2 becomes infructuous as it is very specific from the entire evidence that Devendra Prasad Sinha surrendered the vacant possession of the shop in question to the concerned Mutawalli, hence Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of defendants. 2. To appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid finding it is necessary to note the contents of the plaint. Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1,2,3 are closely related to each other as plaintiff is the grandson of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant Nos. 2, 3 are his uncle which would appear from the genealogical table given below:– Genealogical Table Ram Sharan Ram Ram Sewak Ram (Died in jointness with his (Died issueless) brother Ram Sewak Ram) Devendra Prasad Sinha Surendra Kumar Dilip Kumar Suresh Kumar Prem Kumar Ashok Kumar Ramesh Kumar Suman Kumar (plaintiff) 3. From the Genealogical Table it would appear that Ram Sharan Ram, the great grandfather of the plaintiff predeceased his brother Ram Sewak Ram who died issueless and his widow predeceased him. Ram Sewak Ram managed joint family hotel business in the rented premises of Sunni Wakf Board. Ram Sewak Ram having become old, handed over the joint family hotel business to his only nephew Devendra Prasad Sinha who continued and managed the hotel business as member of the joint Hindu family until he fell ill whereafter the business was managed by his eldest son Surendra Kumar, the father of the plaintiff who continued to manage the hotel business and paid rent of the hotel premises to Wakf Board under receipt granted in the name of Devendra Prasad Sinha. Later Surendra Kumar joined service, whereafter the hotel business was managed by the family servants in the same rented premises. From 1988 plaintiff began to manage the hotel business but dispute arose regarding management and accounting of income from the business which led to the closure of the family hotel business. Later Surendra Kumar joined service, whereafter the hotel business was managed by the family servants in the same rented premises. From 1988 plaintiff began to manage the hotel business but dispute arose regarding management and accounting of income from the business which led to the closure of the family hotel business. Plaintiff being a graduate, unemployed entered into correspondence with Sunni Wakf Board, Defendant No. 4 to continue the hereditary hotel business in his own name. Plaintiff in order to resume the hotel business in the premises in question, which was under his lock and key, took steps to clean the premises on 21.3.1996 but at noon while he was away from the premises in question, Defendant Nos. 1, 2 came to the premises in question along with 4-5 others and forcibly unlocked the premises as also removed the belongings available in the shop on a push cart. Plaintiff having learnt about the aforesaid conduct of his grandfather, his 4-5 supporters, came back to the premises and ascertained the truth from the neighbours as also found that the lock in the shop has been replaced. Plaintiff thereafter informed the aforesaid fact to his father Surendra Kumar when he returned from duty. Plaintiff and his father also went to lodge information about dispossession from the shop in question with Pirbahore Police Station but they refused to register the case and asked the plaintiff to inform the Wakf Board. Plaintiff, however, filed complaint case in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 4.10.1996 which is pending. In Paragraph 10 of the plaint it has been stated that the plaintiff learnt from reliable sources that Defendant Nos. 1,2,4 in collusion with each other want to sell the ancestral shop to criminal elements in order to deprive the plaintiff from resuming the hotel business in the premises in question for maintaining his livelihood. In Paragraph 11 of the plaint it has been stated that plaintiff offered the Sunni Wakf Board that he is ready to pay monthly rental of the shop as before i.e. Rs. 250/- per month. In Paragraph 12 of the plaint plaintiff asserted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in collusion with each other want to sell the tenancy of the shop and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises causing irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, hence the suit. 250/- per month. In Paragraph 12 of the plaint plaintiff asserted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in collusion with each other want to sell the tenancy of the shop and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises causing irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, hence the suit. In Paragraph 12A of the plaint which was introduced by way of amendment, plaintiff asserted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3,4 in league and collusion with each other and with mala fide motive and malicious intention to cause harm and loss to the plaintiff, brought into existence forged, fabricated and ante dated papers executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 on the basis of which Defendant No. 5 has not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit premises in the light of the purported Kirayanama. The alleged Kirayanama deed in favour of Defendant No. 5 is forged, fabricated, ante dated and collusive paper brought into existence by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 after the suit and the same did not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit premises. Having amended the plaint by inserting the aforesaid Paragraph 12A plaintiff also amended the prayer made in the plaint that in case plaintiff is found to have been dispossessed from the suit premises, a decree for recovery of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Aforesaid amendment was allowed under order dated 20.11.1998. Under the same order Defendant No. 5 Smt. Kiran Devi, the alleged beneficiary of the so-called Kirayanama was added as Defendant No. 5 in the suit. In Paragraph 14 plaintiff has asserted that the cause of action for the suit arose on 21.3.1996 when Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 dispossessed the plaintiff from the shop in question by replacing the locks and thereby prevented him from resuming hotel business in the shop in question. Further on 28.9.1996 plaintiff learnt that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in collusion with Defendant No. 4 are trying to sell the shop to criminal elements. Further on 30.9.1996 the plaintiff asked Defendant No. 1 to give in writing to the Wakf Board that plaintiff is the tenant of the shop which was refused by Defendant No. 1 at Mohalla-Babu Tola, Makhania Kuan, P.S. Pirbahore, Patna. 1 to 3 in collusion with Defendant No. 4 are trying to sell the shop to criminal elements. Further on 30.9.1996 the plaintiff asked Defendant No. 1 to give in writing to the Wakf Board that plaintiff is the tenant of the shop which was refused by Defendant No. 1 at Mohalla-Babu Tola, Makhania Kuan, P.S. Pirbahore, Patna. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings made in the plaint, plaintiff prayed for a declaration that plaintiff is the tenant of the suit premises by legal fiction on payment of monthly rental and the defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff. 4. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 filed written statement on 10.01.1997 stating that suit as framed is not maintainable. Plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit. The story as set out in the plaint is cooked up, imaginary and far from the truth. The suit is also barred by limitation, principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. The suit is also hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Plaintiff has also not come to the court with clean hands rather he has filed the suit with misstatements and concealing the material facts with an intention to mislead the court and to obtain an order by misleading the court. In paragraph 8 of the aforesaid written statement it has been submitted that the suit premises was taken on rent by Defendant No. 1 a long time back. Later the said premises was demolished by Patna Municipal Corporation whereafter the landlord at the cost of Defendant No. 1 again raised the said shop premises and Defendant No. 1 was allowed to continue as tenant in the shop premises. Defendant No. 1 continued to make payment of rent to the landlord i.e. the Mutawalli of the Wakf under whose control the said property remained from time to time which would appear from large number of rent receipts granted in favour of Defendant No. 1 in respect of the premises in question by the different Mutawallis of the Wakf Estate. In Paragraph 9 of the written statement it has been stated that Defendant No. 1 had established a hotel business in the suit premises. In course of time, Defendant No. 1 became old, infirm and was unable to continue with the hotel business. In Paragraph 9 of the written statement it has been stated that Defendant No. 1 had established a hotel business in the suit premises. In course of time, Defendant No. 1 became old, infirm and was unable to continue with the hotel business. It has further been stated that Defendant No. 1 having become hard pressed for money had no option but to surrender the shop premises in question to the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate. In Paragraph 10 of the written statement it has been stated that Defendant No. 1 surrendered his tenancy right on 31.5.1996 in favour of the Wakf Estate by filing application before the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate and handed over vacant possession of the said premises in favour of the Wakf Estate. In Paragraph 11 of the written statement it has been stated that after surrender of the tenancy right the suit premises came under the control of the Wakf Estate. In Paragraph 12 of the written statement Defendant No. 1,2 stated that it has been reported that the Wakf Board let out the said premises again to one Smt. Kiran Devi who is now the tenant of the said premises. In Paragraph 13 of the written statement Defendant Nos. 1, 2 stated that plaintiff has levelled false allegation and on the basis of wrong facts has raised imaginary plea. In Paragraph 14 of the written statement Defendant Nos. 1, 2 have admitted the genealogical table furnished by the plaintiff in the plaint and quoted above but denied that Ram Sewak Ram ever carried hotel business in the suit premises. They also denied that Ram Sewak Ram handed over tenancy of the shop in question to Defendant No. 1 whereafter Defendant No. 1 succeeded to the tenancy. In Paragraph 15 of the written statement Defendant Nos. 1, 2 have denied the averments made in Paragraph 4 of the plaint and stated that it is not correct to state that after the grandfather of the plaintiff fell ill, the shop was being looked after by Sri Surendra Kumar, father of the plaintiff who was paying rent of the shop premises to the Wakf Board in the name of Sri Devendra Prasad Sinha. It has further been stated in the said paragraph that it is also incorrect to state that later on the plaintiff began to manage the hotel business from 1988 and the hotel was closed because of family dispute. It has been averred in the said paragraph that neither the plaintiff nor his father Sri Surendra Kumar ever managed the hostel in the shop premises at any point of time rather the relationship of these defendants had been strained with the plaintiff and his father from much earlier. It has also been stated therein that Defendant Nos. 1, 2 apprehended assault at the instance of plaintiff and his father. Apprehension of assault at the instance of plaintiff and his father was also brought to the notice of Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing informatory petition. In the same paragraph it is again reiterated that the hotel was always managed by Defendant No. 1 with the help of staff engaged by him and allegations to the contrary stated in the plaint is not admitted, denied and challenged. In Paragraph 16 of the written statement Defendant Nos. 1, 2 asserted that the plaintiff misbehaved with these defendants as plaintiff and his father had been making attempt to cause physical assault on Defendant No. 1 and there had been danger to his life. It is stated that Defendant No. 1 was fearful to continue in his ancestral house as plaintiff and his father were aggressive and not ready to even allow Defendant No. 1 to stay in the ancestral house. Ultimately the plaintiff and his father illegally, forcibly and by use of muscle power kicked out Defendant Nos. 1, 2 from the ancestral house and in that situation many of the documents relating to the suit premises also remained in the ancestral house itself in which the plaintiff and his father resided. In the same paragraph it is further stated that these defendants are now residing in a tenanted house and they are being deprived of the rental income from the ancestral house. In the same paragraph it is further stated that these defendants are now residing in a tenanted house and they are being deprived of the rental income from the ancestral house. In Paragraph 17 of the written statement these defendants have denied the averments made in Paragraph 5 to 7 of the plaint stating that there had been no occasion for the plaintiff to resume the hotel business as alleged because he had never been doing the hotel business in the suit premises nor he had ever been entitled to do that business in the suit premises. It is also stated in the said paragraph that the defendants are not aware of any so-called correspondence between the plaintiff and the Sunni Wakf Board as alleged and any so-called communication contrary to the facts stated above are illegal, imaginary and not binding on these defendants. It is further stated in the paragraph under reply that the plaintiff had no occasion to clean the shop premises on 21.3.1996 as alleged, the said shop was neither in possession of the plaintiff nor under his lock and key as alleged. It is further stated in the said paragraph that it is absolutely false to state that these defendants with other 4-5 persons replaced the lock of the shop, carried away the belongings kept inside the shop on a push cart. The allegations made in Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the plaint is imaginary, cooked up and manufactured by the evil mind of the plaintiff. As regards statement made in paragraph 8 of the plaint it is stated that the allegation that the plaintiff and his father went to lodge the F.I.R. before local police is also imaginary and manufactured. In Paragraph 19 it has been stated that defendant nos. 1, 2 are neither aware about any complaint case as stated in Paragraph 9 of the plaint nor they have received any communication from any court in that regard. In Paragraph 20 of the written statement Defendant Nos. In Paragraph 19 it has been stated that defendant nos. 1, 2 are neither aware about any complaint case as stated in Paragraph 9 of the plaint nor they have received any communication from any court in that regard. In Paragraph 20 of the written statement Defendant Nos. 1, 2 have stated that Defendant No. 1 has already surrendered the tenancy of the shop in question to the Wakf Estate because he was not in a position to carry on hotel business on account of his advance age, the tenancy of the premises in favour of Defendant No. 1 having come to an end the landlord, the Wakf Estate has already let out the shop premises to a new tenant. In the same paragraph it has further been stated that it is incorrect to state that these defendants in collusion with Defendant No. 4 had been contemplating to transfer/sell the suit premises (ancestral shop). It is also incorrect to say that Defendant No. 1 had no right to surrender the ancestral shop. In paragraph 21 of the written statement these defendants have dealt with averments made in Paragraph 11 of the plaint and stated that these defendants are not aware about the offer given by the plaintiff to the Sunni Wakf Board to transfer the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises which was in favour of Defendant No. 1. In Paragraph 22 of the written statement these defendants have dealt with the averments made in Paragraph 12 of the plaint and submitted that the same is repetition of the allegations made in earlier paragraphs which have already been replied by these defendants, however, it has once again been stated that these defendants have never acted in collusion with the other defendants nor have wanted to sell the tenancy of the shop rather the Defendant No. 1 has surrendered the tenancy in favour of the Wakf Estate as stated above. 5. 5. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, Defendant No. 4 filed its written statement on 19.11.1996 through Chairman of the Board stating that suit is not maintainable and barred by the law of limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence as also provisions of the Specific Relief Act including the provisions of Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which inter alia require two month’s prior notice to the Board stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims and statement to the effect in the plaint that such notice has been delivered. In Paragraph 5 of the written statement it has been stated that suit is bad for non-joinder of Md. Salimuddin, the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate as well as Smt. Kiran Devi, wife of Sri Arjun Kumar Yadav who is the tenant duly inducted by the Managing Committee of the Wakf Estate. In Paragraph 7 of the written statement of the Wakf Board it has been stated that the suit is bad for misjoinder of Defendant No.-1 to 3 as they have no dominion over the suit premises. In Paragraph 8, 9 of the written statement Defendant No. 4 has stated that plaintiff is neither the tenant nor has any dominion, interest, right, title and possession in respect of the suit premises in any manner, he is stranger to the suit premises hence he has to value the suit property as per market value and is required to pay ad valorem court fee, his claim cannot be adjudicated on the valuation of the rent of 12 months. In Paragraph 10 Defendant No.4 has stated that no cause of action for the suit arose as falsely alleged in Paragraph 14 of the plaint. The alleged cause of action is fictitious, concocted and has been inserted with a view to file the suit on the wrong, false basis. In Paragraph 11 of the written statement averment has been made that the statement made in Paragraph 1, 2 of the plaint are self styled of which Defendant No. 4 has no knowledge. In Paragraph 12 of his written statement Defendant No. 4 has dealt with Paragraph 3 of the plaint and has stated that the contents thereof are absurd and baseless. In Paragraph 12 of his written statement Defendant No. 4 has dealt with Paragraph 3 of the plaint and has stated that the contents thereof are absurd and baseless. It is stated that defendant has no knowledge regarding Ram Sewak Ram managing any hotel business in the premises of the Sunni Wakf Board under permanent and hereditary tenancy. According to Defendant No. 4 Defendant No. 1 was the tenant in respect of the suit premises being part of the Wakf Estate who surrendered his tenancy right in favour of Md. Salimuddin, the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate through written letter dated 31.5.1996. The tenant having relinquished, abandoned and surrendered his tenancy right to the Mutawalli because of his old age and ailment and gave vacant possession of the premises to the Mutawalli who inducted Defendant No. 5 as tenant of the premises on the monthly rental of Rs. 600/- who is paying rent to the Mutawalli Md. Salimuddin and in token of payment of rent for the said tenancy receipts are being granted to her which is within the knowledge of the plaintiff and his relation as indicated in the genealogical table including others. In Paragraph 13 of the written statement Defendant No. 4 has dealt with statement made in paragraph 4 of the plaint as baseless, distorted and full of wrong and false statement which is denied and further statement has been made that Surendra Kumar, eldest son of Defendant No. 1 never looked after and managed the hotel business in the suit premises at any point of time to the knowledge of the Board. It has further been stated in the same paragraph that in case Surendra Kumar was in possession of certain rent-receipts granted in the name of Sri Devendra Prasad Sinha even then no tenancy right will devolve either in favour of Sri Surendra Kumar or in favour of plaintiff as falsely alleged because the suit premises is not ancestral property of the plaintiff and there is no application of the right of inheritance to the tenanted shop. In the same paragraph defendant-respondent admitted that Sri Devendra Prasad Sinha was the tenant in respect of the suit property who surrendered the suit premises in favour of the Mutawalli Md. In the same paragraph defendant-respondent admitted that Sri Devendra Prasad Sinha was the tenant in respect of the suit property who surrendered the suit premises in favour of the Mutawalli Md. Salimuddin and gave him vacant possession of the same which is subsequently given in tenancy of Smt. Kiran Devi who is coming in possession thereof as tenant and allegation to the contrary are denied. In the same paragraph it was further stated that it is wholly false to say that Surendra Kumar ever looked after and run the hotel business in the premises in question from 1988 as has been falsely claimed in the paragraph under reply. In the same paragraph it has further been stated that Defendant No. 4 has no knowledge regarding any dispute in between Defendant No. 1 or plaintiff or his family members. In Paragraph 14 of the written statement, statement made in paragraph 5 of the plaint has been described as vague, unfounded and baseless. The plaintiff as per the averments made in the said paragraph never managed the hotel business. In Paragraph 15 Defendant No. 4 has dealt with averment made in paragraph 6 of the plaint and has described the said statement as totally false and baseless as according to Defendant No. 4 plaintiff never began to clean the shop premises on 21.3.1996 to resume the hotel business as falsely alleged in the plaint. In Paragraph 17, 18 of his written statement Defendant No. 4 has stated that Board is not aware of any information given by the plaintiff to the Pirbahore Police Station as also to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna as plaintiff has not stated in paragraph 9 of the plaint the case number which was registered after he filed complaint in the court of C.J.M., Patna. In Paragraphs 19, 20, 21 Defendant No. 4 has denied the story set up by the plaintiff in Paragraph 10 of the plaint and has stated that Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 are not in collusion with each other as falsely alleged in the paragraph under reply. It is further stated in the said paragraph that after surrender of the shop by Defendant No. 1 to the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate Smt. Kiran Devi, Defendant No. 5 has been inducted as tenant and she is paying rent @ Rs. It is further stated in the said paragraph that after surrender of the shop by Defendant No. 1 to the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate Smt. Kiran Devi, Defendant No. 5 has been inducted as tenant and she is paying rent @ Rs. 600/- per month to the Mutawalli and it is impossible and beyond the jurisdiction of Defendant No. 4 to allow the plaintiff to enter into the suit premises on the monthly rental of Rs. 250/-. 6. Defendant No. 5 filed her written statement on 9.4.1999 which is on similar lines as that of Defendant No. 4 stating that she had no knowledge regarding Ram Sewak Ram conducting hotel business in the suit premises of Sunni Wakf Board under permanent and hereditary tenancy. She, however, admitted that she knows Devendra Prasad Sinha, Defendant No. 1 who was the earlier tenant of the suit premises and Defendant No. 1 surrendered the tenancy in favour of Md. Salimuddin, the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate through a written letter dated 31.5.1996 and having relinquished, abandoned and surrendered the tenancy right to the Mutawalli due to his ailment and old age gave vacant possession of the premises to the Mutawalli whereafter she was inducted as tenant in the suit premises on monthly rental of Rs. 600/- which is being paid to the Mutawalli and in token of payment of rent receipt is being issued to her. 7. 600/- which is being paid to the Mutawalli and in token of payment of rent receipt is being issued to her. 7. In the light of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :– (d) D;k izLrqr okn] tSlk fd bldh lajpuk dh xbZ gS] ?kks"k.kh; gS\ ([k) D;k oknh dks izLrqr okn dk oSèk rFkk mfpr okn dkj.k izkIr gS\ (x ) D;k oknh }kjk okn laifÙk dk mfpr ewY; n'kkZ;k x;k gS rFkk ;Fks"B U;k;ky; 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS\ (?k) D;k izLrqr okn] foca/] miefr rFkk R;tu }kjk ckf/kr gS\ (Ä) D;k izLrqr okn oDiQ vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk&56 ds vUrxZr~ ckfèkr gS\ (p) D;k izLrqr okn] izfroknh la[;k&1 ls 3 ds dqla;kstu rFkk tkudh chch oDiQ ds dfFkr eqrcyh ds vla;kstu ds vkèkkj ij ckfèkr gS\ (N) D;k izfroknh la[;k&1 vius O;fDr gSfl;r ls okn laifRr dk ,dek=k fdjk;knkj Fkk ;k os Loñ jke lsod jke ds Hkrhtk ds :i esa okn lEifRr ds fdjk;snkjh dks mÙkjkfèkdkjh ds :i esa izkIr fd;k FkkA (t) D;k oknh tkudh chch oDiQ cksMZ ds okn lEifÙk dk fdjk;knkj FkkA (> ) D;k oknh] okn laifÙk ds dCtk ds okilh ds fMØh dks ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS rFkk okn lEifÙk ds fdjk;knkj ds :i esa jgus dk vf/dkjh gS\ (;) D;k izfroknh la[;k&5 fnukad 05.06.1999 ds fdjk;kukek ds vk/kkj ij okn lEifÙk ds fdjk;snkjh dk vfèkdkj ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS\ (V) D;k fnukad 05.06.1999 dk fdjk;kukek oSèk gS\ (B) D;k oknh vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k o vuqrks"kksa dks ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS\ Official translation of the aforesaid issues is noted below:- (i) Is present suit, as it has been framed, maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid and reasonable cause of action for present suit? (iii) Has plaintiff declared appropriate value of suit property and paid sufficient court fee in respect thereof? (iv) Is the present suit barred by estoppel, acquiescence and waiver? (v) Is the present suit barred under Section 56 of Wakf Act? (vi) Is present suit barred on the basis of misjoinder of O.P. No. 1 to 3 and non-joinder of said Mutawalli (caretaker) of Janki Bibi Wakf? (vii) Whether Opposite Party No. 1 himself was the lone tenant of suit property in personal capacity or had acquired the tenancy of suit property as successor being nephew of Late Ram Sewak Ram? (vi) Is present suit barred on the basis of misjoinder of O.P. No. 1 to 3 and non-joinder of said Mutawalli (caretaker) of Janki Bibi Wakf? (vii) Whether Opposite Party No. 1 himself was the lone tenant of suit property in personal capacity or had acquired the tenancy of suit property as successor being nephew of Late Ram Sewak Ram? (viii) Whether the plaintiff was tenant of suit property for Janki Bibi Wakf Board? (ix) Is plaintiff entitled for getting decree in respect of delivery of possession of suit property and entitled to remain as tenant of suit property? (x) Whether Opposite Party No. 5 is entitled to acquire right to tenancy of suit property on the basis of Kirayanama dated 05.06.1999? (xi) Is Kirayanama dated 05.06.1999 valid? (xii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 8. In the light of the aforesaid issues framed the plaintiff in order to prove his case examined 17 witnesses out of whom P.W.-1 is Manoj Kumar, P.W.-2 is Raju Singh, P.W.-3 is Surendra Kumar, P.W.-4 is Ravi Kumar, P.W.5 is Bacchu Narayan Lal, P.W.-6 is Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W.-7 is Prem Kumar, plaintiff, P.W.-8 is Abadh Bihari Singh, P.W.-9 is Krishna Prasad, P.W.-10 is Krishna Prasad, son of Shiv Narayan Prasad, P.W.-11 is Shyam Babu Singh, P.W.-12 is Lekh Narayan Das, P.W.-13 is Deep Narayan Singh, P.W.-14 is Nageshwar Singh, P.W.-15 is Manoranjan Kumar, P.W.-16 is Uma Prasad, P.W.-17 is Uday Kumar. Besides the aforesaid P.Ws. plaintiff also brought on record following documents as exhibits or documentary evidence :– (i). Ext. 1 to 1/Z - Electric Bills of P.E.S.U. (ii). Ext. 2 to 2/85 - Rent Receipts (iii). Ext. 3 to 3/C - Carbon copy of letters. (iv) Ext. 4 - Certified copy of deposition of one Parmanand Choudhary (v). Ext. 5 - Receipt of Steel Arc. (vi). Ext. 6 to 6/30 - Receipt of Patna Water Board. (vii). Ext. 7 to 7/C - Medical prescription. (viii). Ext. 8 to 8/45 - Rent Receipt (ix). Ext. 9 to 9/A - Ration Card (x). Ext. 10 - Registration of Shop. (xi) Ext. 11 to 11/5 - Platform Tax Receipts. (xii) Ext. 12 to 12/9 - Electricity Bill. (xiii) Ext. 12/10 to Bill of Water 12/14- Board. (xiv). Ext. 12/15 to Bill of Water 12/64 - Board. (xv). Ext. 13 to 13/B - Petition. (xvi). Ext. Ext. 9 to 9/A - Ration Card (x). Ext. 10 - Registration of Shop. (xi) Ext. 11 to 11/5 - Platform Tax Receipts. (xii) Ext. 12 to 12/9 - Electricity Bill. (xiii) Ext. 12/10 to Bill of Water 12/14- Board. (xiv). Ext. 12/15 to Bill of Water 12/64 - Board. (xv). Ext. 13 to 13/B - Petition. (xvi). Ext. 2/84 to 2/85 - Rent Receipts. (xvii) Ext. 14 - Order sheet (xviii) Ext. 15 - Order of Patna High Court. (xix). Ext. 16 - Order sheet of complaint case. (xx). Ext. 17 - Order dated 26.06.2003 (xxi). Ext. 18 - Order dated 18.7.2002 of Civil Revision No. 1904/01. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10, P.W.11, P.W. 13, P.W. 14, P.W. 16 and P.W. 17 are formal witnesses and Advocate Clerks. They have formally proved electric bills, deposition of witness Parmanand Choudhary, carbon copies of petitions, rent receipts etc. None of them are either maker of the documents or have put signature on the documents. P.Ws. 3, 4, 7, 12, 15 are, however, material witnesses. 9. Defendant Nos. 1,2 on the other hand examined twenty witnesses, who are D.W.-1 Ram Bhawan Pandey, D.W.-2 Sailesh Prasad, D.W.-3 Mathura Singh, D.W.-4 Mithilesh Kumar, D.W.-5 Devendra Prasad Singh, D.W.-6 Kamlesh Sharma, D.W.-7 Dilip Kumar, D.W.-8 Rabindra Prasad, D.W.-9 Md. Yunus, D.W.-10 Laxman Kumar, D.W.-11 Bijay Kumar Singh, D.W.-12 Desh Bahadur Jindal, D.W.-13 Rajendra Kumar Paswan, D.W.-14 Dilip Kumar, son of Devendra Prasad Singh, D.W.-15 Mukesh Kumar, D.W.-16 Dinesh Prasad, D.W.-17 Hardeo Singh, D.W.-18 Raj Ballabh Prasad, D.W.-19 Ram Parwesh Paswan and D.W.-20 Ram Nandan Prasad. Defendant Nos. 1,2 have also brought on record the following documents as Exhibits:– (i) Ext. A - Receipt of Patna Municipal Corporation. (ii) Ext. B - Notice of closure (iii) Ext. C - Letter of S.D.O. (iv) Ext. D - Exhibit. (v) Ext. E to E/88- Rent Receipts. (vi) Ext. F - Notice. (vii) Ext. G - Agreement deed (viii) Ext. H to H/10- Electric Bill (ix) Ext. I - Notice of Patna Municipal Corporation. (x) Ext. J - Letter of Water Board, Patna. (xi) Ext. K - Bill of Water Board. (xii) Ext. L-L/1 - Notice. (xiii) Ext. M - Medical Prescription. (xiv) Ext. N - Cardiology report. (xv) Ext. O to O/2- Informatory petition. H to H/10- Electric Bill (ix) Ext. I - Notice of Patna Municipal Corporation. (x) Ext. J - Letter of Water Board, Patna. (xi) Ext. K - Bill of Water Board. (xii) Ext. L-L/1 - Notice. (xiii) Ext. M - Medical Prescription. (xiv) Ext. N - Cardiology report. (xv) Ext. O to O/2- Informatory petition. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1,2, D.W.-1, D.W.-2, D.W.-3, D.W.-4, D.W.-6, D.W.-7, D.W.-8, D.W.-9, D.W.-10, D.W.-11, D.W.-12, D.W.-13, D.W.-15, D.W.-16, D.W.-17, D.W.-18, D.W.-19 and D.W.-20 are formal witnesses. They are Advocate clerks and have only formally proved the various receipts, bill, letter, notice etc. They are neither maker of the documents nor put their signature over the documents nor concerned/connected with the documents in any manner. 10. Defendant No. 4, the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, has filed separate written statement and has also adduced oral evidence. Six witnesses have been examined on behalf of Wakf Board i.e. D.W. 1 Md. Jamaluddin, D.W.-2 Md. Mansoor Alam, D.W.-3 Abdul Hakim, D.W.-4 Mohiuddin Hussain, D.W.-5 Md. Moin Khan and D.W.6 Motib Ahmad. D.W.1 Md. Jamaluddin has stated that the shop in dispute was given on rent to Kiran Devi in 1996 at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month by the Mutawalli Md. Salimuddin. He also stated that as the shop was surrendered by Devendra Prasad Sinha, the shop was given to the other tenant. He has also stated that Mutawalli was appointed by Wakf Board and the Wakf Estate never came in direct management of Board. D.W.2 Md. Mansoor Alam, is also employee of Wakf Board has stated that Md. Salimuddin was the Mutawalli of Wakf Estate No. 465/B. He has proved letter of Mutawalli Ext.-1. He also stated that according to audit report Devendra Prasad was tenant of shop in dispute. He also stated that presently Kiran Devi Defendant No. 5 is tenant of that shop. D.W. 3, D.W. 4, D.W.5 and D.W. 6 are all employees of Board and they have specifically stated that originally Devendra Prasad was tenant and after surrender of the shop by Devendra Prasad, Kiran Devi (Defendant No. 5) was inducted as tenant by Mutawalli. The witnesses have specifically stated that at the time of surrender of the shop and induction of new tenant, Md. Salimuddin was Mutawalli of the concerned Wakf Estate. The witnesses have specifically stated that at the time of surrender of the shop and induction of new tenant, Md. Salimuddin was Mutawalli of the concerned Wakf Estate. The witnesses have also stated about execution of agreement by new tenant and surrender of shop by Devendra Prasad Sinha. 11. Defendant No. 5 who has filed separate written statement has also examined fourteen witnesses out of whom D.W.1 is Jarrar Hussain, D.W.2 is Mangal Singh, D.W. 3 is Baidyanath Prasad, D.W. 4 is Shyam Babu Singh, D.W. 5 is Munshi Yadav, D.W. 6 is Mauji Lal, D.W. 7 is Gopal Sao, D.W. 8 is Awadhesh Kumar, D.W. 9 is Sitaram Prasad, D.W. 10 is Md. Salimuddin, D.W. 11 is Krishna Kant Tiwary, D.W. 12 is Majhar Imam, D.W. 13 is Narayan Sao, D.W. 14 is Arjun Kumar Yadav. Out of the aforesaid witnesses D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4, D.W.8, D.W.11, D.W. 12 and D.W. 13 are formal witnesses as they have formally proved the documents i.e. rent-receipt, Agreement etc. D.W. 5, 6, 7, 9, 14 are material witnesses on behalf of Defendant No. 5. 12. After constitution of the Bihar Wakf Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Wakf Act 1995 Defendant Nos. 4, 5 filed petition before Munsif-I, Patna to transfer the suit for adjudication by the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 85 and 85A of the aforesaid Act. Under order dated 4.2.2009 passed in the suit the court below directed for transfer of the suit to the Tribunal against which petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 766/2009 which was held to be not maintainable, frivolous and dismissed under order dated 19.5.2009 with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. 13. During course of argument the Tribunal recasted the issues which are quoted herein below:– (i) Whether Devendra Prasad was running a joint family business? (ii) Whether Devendra Prasad as Karta of joint family business has got authority to surrender the joint family business? (iii) Whether Devendra Prasad surrendered joint family business or premises of joint family business? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief? 14. (ii) Whether Devendra Prasad as Karta of joint family business has got authority to surrender the joint family business? (iii) Whether Devendra Prasad surrendered joint family business or premises of joint family business? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief? 14. Having recasted the issues the Tribunal scrutinized the materials available on record and observed in Paragraph 50 that all the witnesses of plaintiff and defendants (both sets) have admitted that Devendra Prasad was managing the hotel business in the suit premises which he surrendered to the Mutawalli whereafter Defendant No. 5 was inducted as new tenant of the suit premises. In paragraph 51 of the judgment Tribunal observed that the only dispute and point for consideration is whether Devendra Prasad aforesaid has right to surrender the possession of the shop without the permission or consent of coparceners. In paragraph 53 of the judgment the Tribunal observed that scanning of the evidence of all the witnesses including the plaintiff it is very specific that Devendra Prasad surrendered the vacant possession of shop to Mutawalli not the joint family business. It is further observed by the Tribunal that a distinction is to be made between joint family business and premises of business. According to the Tribunal there is no evidence either oral or documentary available on record to show that joint family business was surrendered. Had there been oral or documentary evidence to suggest that joint family business was surrendered necessity of consent or permission of coparcener would have to be scrutinized or considered. According to the Tribunal plaintiff even did not suggest that Devendra Prasad was managing a joint family business and in absence of such evidence or suggestion it is very difficult rather impossible to believe or hold that Devendra Prasad was managing a joint family business. Having observed as above, Tribunal recorded a finding in Paragraph 56 of its judgment that plaintiff has not succeeded in proving that Devendra Prasad was managing a joint family business hence Issue No. 1 after recast is decided against the plaintiff and Issue No. 2 becomes infructuous in the light of the finding recorded in connection with Issue No. 1 and as Devendra Prasad surrendered the vacant possession of the shop to the Mutawalli, the shop was rightly settled in favour of the new tenant, Defendant No. 5. Having held as above, Tribunal dismissed the suit. 15. Having held as above, Tribunal dismissed the suit. 15. Aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal has been challenged by the plaintiff petitioner with reference to the evidence led by him in response to Issue No. F framed by Munsif, Patna under order dated 25.6.1999 to establish that Defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the suit property in his capacity as heir and legal representative of Ram Sewak Ram and not in his individual capacity. Reliance in this connection is placed on Exhibit-9, Ration Card of the year 1949 which has been issued in the name of Ram Sewak Ram as head of the family along with the name of Devendra Prasad Sinha as member of the family. With reference to the said Ration Card it is submitted Devendra Prasad was the member of the joint family of which Ram Sewak Ram was the Karta. With reference to Exhibit-8/45, the 45 rent receipts issued by the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board through Mutawalli Md. Suleman during the years between 1947-1955 indicating Ram Sewak Ram as the tenant of the premises in question it is submitted that the shop in question was taken on rent by Ram Sewak Ram as Karta of the joint Hindu family. With reference to Exhibit-1Z-1Z-9 it is submitted that the electric connection in the shop in question was taken on 16.5.1949 in the name of Ram Sewak Lall/Ram, Makhaniya Kuan who was the Karta of the joint family. With reference to Exhibit-10 it is submitted that registration certificate of the shop in question dated 18.9.1955 was issued under Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 in the name of Ram Sewak Lall/Ram. With reference to Exhibit-11 to 11/5 dated 23.4.1953, 5.5.1954, 6.12.1955, 16.2.1960, 27.8.1960, 9.9.1960 platform tax receipt issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation also indicate that the platform tax for the shop in question was taken from Ram Sewak Ram as Karta of the joint family. It is submitted with reference to the aforesaid documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-9, 8 to 8/45, 1Z to 1Z/9, 10, 11 to 11/5 that Ram Sewak Ram as Karta of the joint family had taken the shop in question on rent where he managed the hotel business until his death in January 1960 vide paragraph 46 of P.W.3 Surendra Kumar the father of the plaintiff and eldest grandson of Ram Sewak Ram. The factum of death of Ram Sewak Ram in January, 1960 has been confirmed by P.W.-3 Surendra Kumar, the eldest grandson of Ram Sewak Ram and father of plaintiff vide paragraph 46 of his cross-examination as also by Plaintiff P.W. 7 in his cross-examination paragraph 50 and not challenged by defendants. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner further asserted with reference to Exhibit-11/3, 11/4, 11/5 dated 16.2.1960, 27.8.1960 and 9.9.1960 granted by the Patna Municipal Corporation indicating deposit of platform tax for encroaching the pavement in front of the shop in question by the tenant of the suit premises that after the death of Ram Sewak Ram in January, 1960 through his heir and successor Devendra Prasad Sinha who inherited the joint Hindu family business of Ram Sewak Ram conducted in the suit premises along with his three sons Surendra Kumar, Dilip Kumar, Defendant No. 2 and Suresh Kumar, Defendant No. 3 along with grandson Prem Kumar, plaintiff and his brothers. In this connection, plaintiff also relied on the following evidence of D.W.-2 who examined himself as D.W.-14 Paragraph 72. ^^rdjkjh nqdku dk vk; gh la;qDr ifjokj ds rhuksa yM+dksa dh ukSdjh ds igys ifjokj ds vk; dk Jksr FkkA rdjkjh nqdku dh vk; ls rhuksa yM+dksa dk [kkuk&ihuk f'k{kk&nh{kk gqvkA** 17. Learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant No. 5 Kiran Devi also supported the case of the plaintiff that uncle of Devendra Prasad Sinha Ram Sewak Ram was tenant in the premises in question and after his death Devendra Prasad Sinha continued the hotel business in the said premises. Learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant No. 5 Kiran Devi also supported the case of the plaintiff that uncle of Devendra Prasad Sinha Ram Sewak Ram was tenant in the premises in question and after his death Devendra Prasad Sinha continued the hotel business in the said premises. In this connection, plaintiff also relied on the following evidence of D.W. 5 Munshi Yadav Paragraph 9 :– jke lsod jke us oDiQ cksMZ ls rdjkjh nqdku fdjk;k ij fy;k FkkA jke lsod jke tc cw<+s gks x;s rc rdjkjh nqdku dks mudk Hkrhtk nsosUnz pykus yxsA Plaintiff also relied on the following evidence of D.W.-6 Mauji Lal examined on behalf of Defendant No. 5 Paragraph-1 :– rdjkjh nqdku dks igys jke lsod pykrs FksA muds ckn nsosUnzth nqdku pykus yxsA Plaintiff also relied on the following evidence of D.W.-10 Salimuddin, Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate, examined on behalf of Defendant No. 5 paragraph 12 :– nsosUnz ckcw ds pkpk jke lsod ckcw igys rdjkjh nqdku ds fdjk;snkj FksA muds ejus ds ckn nsosUnz ckcw mlds fdjk;snkj gq, ;g ckr esjs firk us eq>s crk;kA 18. With reference to the aforesaid documentary and oral evidence counsel for the plaintiff petitioner submitted that Ram Sewak Ram being the Karta of the joint family was tenant of the suit premises from 1947 till his death in January, 1960. After death of Ram Sewak Ram in January, 1960 Devendra Prasad Sinha, Defendant No. 1 his heir and successor succeeded to the family business in the suit premises and managed the same in his capacity as Karta of the joint family of which plaintiff, his father, two uncle along with the brothers of the plaintiff were the other coparceners. 19. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the case put forward by Defendant Nos. 19. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the case put forward by Defendant Nos. 1, 2 in Paragraph 8 of the written statement filed on 10.1.1997 by Defendant No. 1 that suit premises was taken on rent by Defendant No. 1 long time back which was demolished at the instance of Patna Municipal Corporation whereafter the landlord i.e. Mutawalli at the cost of the Defendant No. 1 raised another shop premises and Defendant No. 1 was allowed to continue as tenant in the newly raised shop and he continued to make payment of rent to the landlord i.e. Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate under whose control the said property remained from time to time who issued rent receipt after receiving payment of rent from Defendant No. 1 appears to be incorrect bordering in falsehood as Defendant Nos. 1, 2 have not stated in their written statement about the date, month and year when Defendant No. 1 took tenancy of the premises in question specifically nor has he stated about the documents of tenancy. Apart from that they have also not stated the specific date, month, time and year of demolition of the said premises in question but subsequently they have produced fabricated antedated document Exhibit-G dated 15.4.1959 to establish that the tenanted premises was demolished and again raised pursuant to Exhibit-G dated 15.4.1959. It is submitted that bare perusal of Exhibit-G shows that neither the said document bears the seal of treasury nor seal, licence number of the stamp vender which goes to show that the said document is ante dated, has been fabricated much after the filing of the suit and written statement dated 10.1.1997. It is also submitted that contents of Exhibit-G is falsified from the evidence of D.W.-2. examined on behalf of Defendant No. 4 Mansoor Alam employee of the Wakf Board who categorically stated in Paragraph 24 as follows:– ^^nsosUnz ckcw dk oDiQ cksMZ esa dksbZ fdjk;kukek ugha gSA** 20. Besides it is submitted that neither Defendant No. 1,2 nor Defendant Nos. 4, 5 placed on record any documentary evidence to indicate that the tenanted premises has been demolished under orders of Patna Municipal Corporation and raised after sanction of another map. Besides it is submitted that neither Defendant No. 1,2 nor Defendant Nos. 4, 5 placed on record any documentary evidence to indicate that the tenanted premises has been demolished under orders of Patna Municipal Corporation and raised after sanction of another map. It is further submitted that Exhibit-G is further falsified from perusal of Exhibits 11 to 11/4 i.e. the platform tax receipt granted in connection with the tenanted premises issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation vide Exhibits 11/3 to 11/5 dated 16.2.1960, 27.8.1960, 9.9.1960 and thus, it is crystal clear that Ram Sewak Ram was tenant being Karta of the joint Hindu family of the plaintiff along with Defendant Nos. 1,2,3 as also father of the plaintiff Surendra Kumar which was inherited by Defendant No. 1 after the death of Ram Sewak Ram in January, 1960. It is next submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that Devendra Prasad Sinha suffered illness from 16.11.1967, as would appear from Exhibit-7/C, prescription issued by Dr. C.P. Thakur as also Exhibit-7 dated 29.9.1980, 7/A dated 12.3.1986, 7/B dated 1.4.1986 issued by Dr. Ram Lakhan Prasad Lall and it is said that during the illness of Defendant No. 1 family hotel business was managed by the eldest son of Defendant No. 1 and father of plaintiff Surendra Kumar who managed the joint family hotel business in the tenanted premises till he joined service in the year 1974 whereafter hotel business was being managed through servants and looked after by Surendra Kumar. Petitioner plaintiff managed the joint family hotel business in the tenanted premises from 1988 till 1994 whereafter the business remained closed due to accounting dispute between plaintiff, his father Surendra Kumar and Defendant Nos. 1-3. It is said during the period between 1967 to 1993 Defendant No. 1 obtained rent receipts granted by Wakf Board and electricity bill issued by P.E.S.U. for the year 1967-87 Exhibit 2 to 2/84 (85 sheets), Patna Water Board Tax Receipt from the year 1976 to 93, Exhibit- 6 to 6/30 (31 sheets) Exhibit 12 to 12/64 (65 sheets) electricity bill receipts for the tenanted shop in his own name to establish his personal tenancy over the suit premises which is wholly contrary to the documents indicating the tenancy of the suit premises in the name of Ram Sewak Ram vide Exhibit 8 to 8/45 (46 rent receipts granted by State Sunni Wakf Board through Mutawalli Md. Suleman in the name of Ram Sewak Ram as tenant of the tenanted premises in question from the year 1947 to 1955, Exhibit-9 Ration Card of the year 1949 stood in the name of Ram Sewak Ram showing him as Head of the family along with Devendra Prasad as member of the family. Name of card-holder which goes to show that Ram Sewak Ram and Defendant No. 1 constituted a joint Hindu family in the year 1949, Exhibit- 1Z-1 Electric connection dated 16.5.49 issued by Patna Electricity Supply Company in the name of Ram Sewak Ram/Lall, Makhaniyakuan and Electric bill (Ext. 1Z-2 to 1Z-9), Exhibit-9 Electric bills of the year 1949 to 1950 stood in the name of Ram Sewak Ram with respect to the tenanted shop in question, Exhibit-10 Registration certificate of the shop in question dated 8.9.1955 issued under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act in the name of Ram Sewak Ram/Lall, Exhibit-11 to 11/5- Platform tax receipt issued by Patna Municipal Corporation in the name of Ram Sewak Ram/Lall, Exhibit-11 dated 23.4.1953, Exhibit-11/1 dated 5.5.1954, Exhibit-11/2 dated 6.12.1955, Exhibit-11/3 dated 16.2.1960, Exhibit-11/4 dated 27.8.1960, Exhibit-11/5 dated 9.9.1960 (Exhibit-11 to 11/5 issued in the name of Ram Sewak Ram) much earlier in point of time with regard to the same premises and with reference to the aforesaid documents it is submitted that the story of the personal tenancy set forth by Devendra Prasad Sinha and his son Rajesh Kumar, Defendant Nos. 1,2 is not reliable and fit to be rejected as from Exhibits 11/3, 11/4, 11/5 dated 16.2.1960, 27.8.1960, 9.9.1960 it is quite evident that Devendra Prasad Sinha had paid platform tax for encroaching the pavement in front of the shop in question on behalf of Ram Sewak Ram from 16.2.1960 to 9.9.1960, as such, for the subsequent period any receipt obtained by Devendra Prasad Sinha for the same shop premises in his own name cannot be relied upon. 21. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that Defendant Nos. 21. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that Defendant Nos. 1,2 in order to establish the personal tenancy of Defendant No. 1 over the suit premises filed surrender letter dated 31.5.1996 but the said Surrender letter dated 31.5.1996 (Ext.-F and X) is not reliable and ante dated as Exhibit-F has been signed by Devendra Prasad Sinha and Mutawalli Salimuddin in Urdu but copy of the same surrender letter dated 31.5.1996 (Exhibit-X) filed by Mutawalli (D.W.-10) has been signed by Devendra Prasad Sinha and witness Ajijuddin in English and there is no signature of the Mutawalli over Exhibit-X. 22. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submitted that it is well settled principle of Hindu Law that no coparcener can alienate or surrender joint Hindu family property including tenancy without the consent of the other coparceners. In this connection it is again reiterated that the hotel business of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed due to accounting dispute between the coparceners and plaintiff being unemployed, graduate filed petition dated 19.3.1996 (Exhibit-3 ‘C’) before the Chairman of the Wakf Board requesting the Board to settle the shop in question in his name. In anticipation of the settlement of the shop in question by the Wakf Board in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff-petitioner opened the shop on 21.3.1996 from the keys which he had in his possession for cleaning and while he had gone for lunch he was informed that Defendant Nos. 1,2 forcibly broke the locks of the shop and removed the belongings kept in the shop in question. Information about the forcible removal of the belongings from the shop in question by Defendant Nos. 1,2 was given to the Judicial Magistrate vide Exhibit-4 by filing Complaint Case No. 356(C)/96. Vide petition dated 3.10.1996 (Exhibit-3) plaintiff-petitioner informed the Chairman of the Wakf Board about the incident dated 21.3.1996 with further information to the Chairman that Defendant No. 1 wanted to sell the joint family tenanted shop to outsiders. 23. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that his grievance with regard to the forcible dispossession from the shop premises was not attended to either by the Wakf Board or in the complaint case referred to above, he filed Title Suit No. 59/96 on 4.10.1996 before the court of Munsif-I, Patna impleading Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the suit. 1 to 4 in the suit. Having filed the suit plaintiff petitioner learnt that defendants in collusion with each other want to deliver possession of the suit premises to Kiran Devi and information to that effect was given to Pirbahore police which is evident from Exhibit-3/B dated 19.10.1996. Plaintiff petitioner filed further petition dated 3.11.1996 before City S.P. annexing the earlier petition dated 19.10.1996 but no help was given to the plaintiff-petitioner. Injunction matter in the suit was considered under order dated 9.12.1996 when the court below in the light of the report of the Pleader Commissioner submitted after local inspection observed that during inspection of the shop in question one Arjun Yadav, husband of Smt. Kiran Devi opened the locks of the shop and informed the Pleader Commissioner that his wife Kiran Devi is the new tenant of the shop duly inducted as tenant of the shop on 5.6.1996 by the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate on payment of rent of Rs. 600/- per month, which would appear from photo copy of the Kirayanama. From the said order itself it appears that Mutawalli informed the Secretary of the Wakf Board about the new tenancy in favour of Kiran Devi on 22.8.1996. Having learnt about the induction of Smt. Kiran Devi as the new tenant of the shop in question during hearing of the injunction matter plaintiff petitioner impleaded the new tenant as Defendant No. 5. 24. Defendant No. 5 filed her written statement on 9.4.1999 in which she reiterated the case set forth by Defendant No. 4 that the suit premises was never taken on rent by Ram Sewak Ram to conduct and manage joint family hotel business which was inherited by Devendra Prasad Sinha and other coparceners of the joint family after his death. Defendant No. 5 further reiterated that the shop in question was earlier let out to Devendra Prasad Sinha who surrendered the tenancy on 31.5.1996 and thereafter Defendant No. 5 was inducted as tenant in the premises on monthly rental of Rs. 600/-. 25. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that neither Defendant No. 4 nor Defendant No. 5 specifically pleaded about the date on which tenancy was created in favour of Defendant No. 5. Later, Defendant No. 5 filed Exhibit-13/1, photo copy of Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 on 23.8.1999 in court with list of documents which has been marked as Exhibit-13/1. 25. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that neither Defendant No. 4 nor Defendant No. 5 specifically pleaded about the date on which tenancy was created in favour of Defendant No. 5. Later, Defendant No. 5 filed Exhibit-13/1, photo copy of Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 on 23.8.1999 in court with list of documents which has been marked as Exhibit-13/1. Husband of Defendant No. 5 Arjun Kumar Yadav was examined as D.W.-14 who admitted in his deposition on 28.5.2004 vide Paragraph 48 that stamp over which Kirayanama (Exhibit-13/1) has been typed was purchased on 4.6.1996. Page Nos. 1 to 5 of Exhibit-13/1 bears the signature of only Kiran Devi but the last page 6 of the Kirayanama bears the signature of Mutawalli dated 15.6.1996 and of Kiran Devi and the three witnesses dated 5.6.1996. It is further submitted that Defendant No. 5 filed original of Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 (Exhibit-13/1) on 26.9.2000 with list of document which is marked as Exhibit-13 perusal whereof indicates that the stamp paper on which the said Kirayanama has been typed was purchased on 4.6.1996. It also appears from perusal of Exhibit-13 that the Kirayanama has been signed by the landlord and the tenant on every page of the Kirayanama and there is no difficulty in concluding that Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 (Exhibit-13) is the original copy of the photo copy of the Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 (Exhibit-13/1). 26. Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate, the landlord of the shop in question, was examined as D.W.-10 on behalf of Defendant No. 5 who also produced his copy of the Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 signed by him and the tenant on every page of the Kirayanama except Page No. 5 on which only tenant Kiran Devi put her signature. Aforesaid Kirayanama has been marked as Exhibit-X-2 on 15.1.2003 which is also admitted in Paragraph 3 of the deposition of D.W.-10. From perusal of Exhibit-X-2, the copy of the Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 filed on behalf of Defendant No. 5 through D.W.-10, indicates that the same has been typed on stamp paper purchased on 31.5.1996, as such, according to the plaintiff-petitioner Exhibit-X-2 cannot be the copy of the Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 (Exhibit-13, 13/1). It is further submitted that there is no averment in the written statement of Defendant Nos. It is further submitted that there is no averment in the written statement of Defendant Nos. 4,5 that Defendant No. 5 took the premises on rent from Defendant No. 4 through Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 which proves that at the time of filing of written statement by both defendant nos. 4,5 on 19.11.1996, 9.4.1999 Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 typed on stamp paper purchased on 31.5.1996, 4.6.1996 was not in existence and has been brought into existence only after filing of the written statement by the defendants with a view to mislead the court to conclude that Defendant No. 5 was inducted as tenant on 5.6.1996 with reference to Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996. In this connection reference is also made to the deposition of D.W.-14, the husband of Defendant No. 5 Paragraphs 45, 46, 47 where he admits that Kirayanama (Exhibit-13) was filed on behalf of Defendant No. 5 along with list of document dated 26.9.2000. In paragraph 46 he further admits that stamp paper of the original Kirayanama is dated 31.5.2000 and denies the suggestion that it is wrong to assert that the original Kirayanama is not dated 31.5.2000. In paragraph 47 he also accepts that the stamp over which Kirayanama has been typed was purchased in the name of his wife (Defendant No. 5) and denies the suggestion that Kirayanama has been typed on the stamp purchased in the name of Salimuddin. 27. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner with reference to the aforesaid evidence of the husband of Defendant No. 5 submitted that Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 has come into existence on 23.8.1999 or thereafter but in order to mislead the courts Defendant Nos. 4,5 have produced photo copy of Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 (Exhibit-13/1) typed on the stamp paper purchased in the name of Md. Salimuddin on 4.6.1996 along with list of documents dated 23.8.1999 and thereafter original of the said Kirayanama on 24.4.2003 and the Kirayanama dated 5.6.1996 typed on the stamp paper purchased in the name of Kiran Devi on 31.5.1996 on 15.1.2003. Aforesaid three Kirayanama have been brought in existence on 23.8.1999 or thereafter with a view to mislead the courts that they were in existence on 5.6.1996 when Defendant No. 5 was put in possession of the suit premises. 28. Aforesaid three Kirayanama have been brought in existence on 23.8.1999 or thereafter with a view to mislead the courts that they were in existence on 5.6.1996 when Defendant No. 5 was put in possession of the suit premises. 28. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner with reference to six rent receipts dated 15.12.1996, 13.11.1996, 6.10.1996, 6.9.1996, 8.8.1996, 7.6.1996 (Exhibits-AA, AA-1, AA-2, AA-3, AA-4, AA-5) submitted that bare perusal of the aforesaid six rent receipts would indicate that the receipts have been fabricated on a single day in one pen and signature, in the circumstances, no reliance should be placed over the same. 29. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submitted that Defendant No. 5 did not examine herself as a witness in the case to support her written statement which is required to be rejected. It is also submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that the instant suit is not barred under Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1954 as plaintiff-petitioner served letter dated 19.3.1996 (Exhibit-3/C) and letter dated 3.10.1996 (Exhibit-3) on the authorities of the Board and was also granted receipt, as such, the provisions of the repealing Act was complied with by the plaintiff-petitioner. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that reliance placed by the counsel for the respondents over the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRS. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 726 holding that Tribunal cannot entertain and adjudicate upon a dispute regarding eviction of the tenant holding Wakf property is not applicable to the facts of this case as petitioner being conscious of the limited jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal as per the provisions of Sections 32, 65, 83 challenged his forcible eviction from the suit premises at the instance of defendant nos. 1,2,3,4 before the competent Civil Court by filing the present suit. It was Defendant Nos. 4,5 who submitted before the competent court of civil jurisdiction in view of Sections 85, 85A of the Wakf Act, 1995 that the instant suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court which submission of Defendant Nos. 4,5 was upheld by the Civil Court under order dated 4.2.2009 and the suit was transferred to the Tribunal. It was Defendant Nos. 4,5 who submitted before the competent court of civil jurisdiction in view of Sections 85, 85A of the Wakf Act, 1995 that the instant suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court which submission of Defendant Nos. 4,5 was upheld by the Civil Court under order dated 4.2.2009 and the suit was transferred to the Tribunal. Aforesaid order dated 4.2.2009 transferring the suit to the Tribunal was challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner before the High Court by filing Civil Revision No. 766/2009 which was dismissed under orders dated 19.5.2009 with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the Wakf Board. In the light of the direction of the High Court petitioner deposited the cost amount on 19.1.2010 which is evident from the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the Tribunal. Defendant Nos. 4,5 having got the suit transferred from the competent Civil Court to the Tribunal, it is not appropriate for them to submit that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction as Defendant Nos. 4, 5 cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhau Ram Vs. Baij Nath Singh and others AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1327 paragraph 3, Shri Prafulla Chandra Sinha and others Vs. Chotanagpur Banking Association Ltd. AIR 1965 Patna 502 paragraph 6, 1978 BLJ page-2. 31. This Court having noticed the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner and the Wakf Tribunal issued notice to the contesting Defendant-respondent No. 5 under order dated 26.7.2012 in response whereto Respondent No. 5 appeared and submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal is without jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Govindram (Dead) (supra) and relied on the following paragraphs of the said judgment :– “Paragraph-4- Whether or not the Wakf Tribunal can entertain and adjudicate upon a dispute regarding eviction of a tenant holding wakf property under the Wakf Board, would depend upon the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1995 and express or implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain any such dispute. If the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts whether such exclusion is absolute and all pervasive or limited only to a particular class of disputes is also an incidental question that may have to be addressed. If the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts whether such exclusion is absolute and all pervasive or limited only to a particular class of disputes is also an incidental question that may have to be addressed. There is a cleavage in the judicial opinion expressed on these questions by different High Courts in the country. Paragraph-6- A plain reading of sub-section (5) of section 6 (supra) would show that the civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings stands specifically excluded in relation to any question referred to in sub-section(1). The exclusion, it is evident from the language implied, is not absolute or all pervasive. It is limited to the adjudication of the question (a) whether a particular property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs is or is not a wakf property, and (b) whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia Wakf or a Sunni Wakf. The Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested in the Wakf is competent to institute a suit in a Tribunal for a decision on the above question or questions, which decision shall then be final provided that no such suit can be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs. Paragraphs 20- From a conjoint reading of the provisions of sections 6 and 7 (supra) it is clear that the jurisdiction to determine whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a wakf is a Shia Wakf or a Sunni Wakf rests entirely with the Tribunal and no suit or other proceeding can be instituted or commenced in a civil court in relation to any such question after the commencement of the Act. What is noteworthy is that under section 6 read with section 7 (supra) the institution of (sic a suit in) the civil court is barred only in regard to questions that are specifically enumerated therein. The bar is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the Wakf property. What is noteworthy is that under section 6 read with section 7 (supra) the institution of (sic a suit in) the civil court is barred only in regard to questions that are specifically enumerated therein. The bar is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the Wakf property. Paragraph 23- The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts to adjudicate upon disputes whether a particular property specified in the wakf list is or is not a wakf property or whether a wakf specified in the list is a Shia Wakf or a Sunni Wakf is clear and presents to difficulty whatsoever. The difficulty, however, arises on account of the fact that apart from section 6(5) which bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts to determine matters referred to in section 6(1), section 85 of the Act also bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain any legal proceedings in respect of any dispute, question or matter relating to a Wakf property. Paragraph 28- Section 85 of the Act clearly bars jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain any suit or proceedings in relation to orders passed by or proceedings that may be commenced before the Tribunal. It follows that although section 85 is wider than what is contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts even under section 85 is not absolute. It is limited only to matters that are required by the Act to be determined by a Tribunal. So long as the dispute or question falls before the civil courts does not fall within the four corners of the powers vested in the Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the former to entertain a suit or proceedings in relation to any such question cannot be said to be barred. Paragraph 31- “It is clear from sub section (1) of section 83 above that the State Government is empowered to establish as many Tribunals as it may deem fit for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property under the Act and define the local limits of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 31- “It is clear from sub section (1) of section 83 above that the State Government is empowered to establish as many Tribunals as it may deem fit for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property under the Act and define the local limits of their jurisdiction. Sub section (2) of section 83 permits any mutawalli or other person interested in a wakf or any person aggrieved of an order made under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder to approach the Tribunal for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf. What is important is that the Tribunal can be approached only if the person doing so is a mutawalli or a person interested in a wakf of aggrieved by an order made under the Act or the Rules. The remaining provisions of section 83 provide for the procedure that the Tribunal shall be executed. No appeal is however, maintainable against any such order although the High Court may call for the records and decide about the correctness, legality or propriety of any determination made by the Tribunal. Paragraph 32- There is, in our view, nothing in section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts extends (sic) beyond what has been provided for in section 6(5), section 7 and section 85 of the Act. It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question of other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto means that the jurisdiction of the civil courts stands completely excluded by reasons of such establishment. Paragraph 33- It is noteworthy that the expression “ for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” appearing in section 83(1) also appears in section 85 of the Act. Section 85 does not, however exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of any or every question or disputes only because the same relates to a wakf or a wakf property. Section 85 in terms provides that the jurisdiction of the civil court shall stand excluded in relation to only such matters as are required by or under this Act to be determined by the tribunal. Section 85 in terms provides that the jurisdiction of the civil court shall stand excluded in relation to only such matters as are required by or under this Act to be determined by the tribunal. Paragraph 34- The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case whether a plea regarding excluding of the jurisdiction of the civil court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a civil court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the civil court would stand excluded. Paragraph 35- In the cases at hand, the Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from what is admittedly wakf property could, therefore, he filed only before the civil Court and not before the Tribunal. Paragraph 36- The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not, therefore, legally sound. So also the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we have said hereinabove stand overruled. The view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras and Bombay is, however, affirmed. Paragraph 37- In the result these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and those passed by the Wakf Tribunal shall stand set aside and the suit filed by the respondent Wakf Board for the eviction of the appellants are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 32. Having relied on the aforequoted paragraphs of the judgment learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Govindram (supra) it is evident that the Supreme Court settled the law before passing of the impugned judgment by the Tribunal that suits relating to tenancy of Wakf property is beyond jurisdiction of Tribunal. As such, the impugned judgment is without jurisdiction, void ab initio and non est. Reliance in this connection was also placed by the counsel for the contesting respondent over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balvant N. Viswamitra and others Vs. Yada Sadashiv Mule (dead) through LRS. And others (2004) 8 SCC 706 . Counsel for Respondent No. 5 further submitted that writ petition is not maintainable as against the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, a civil revision lies to the High Court under the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 85 of the Wakf Act. Plaintiff-Petitioner having filed writ petition that too after more than one year of the passing of the impugned judgment, the writ petition is not maintainable as also there is no explanation for the inordinate delay of one year in filing the writ petition. 33. Counsel for Respondent No. 5 further submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Respondent Nos. 4, 5 cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate as the suit was transferred to the Tribunal at their instance. It is submitted by the counsel for Respondent No. 5 that the Tribunal cannot be vested with the jurisdiction which it does not have and the order rendered by it is wholly without jurisdiction, void ab initio and non est. 34. It is further submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 5 that from the pleadings and evidence on record, it is quite evident that the suit premises always remained under the management of Salimuddin, Mutwalli who let out the premises to Respondent No. 5 after it was surrendered by Devendra Prasad Sinha, grand father of the petitioner, as such, no direction as prayed for can be issued to the Wakf Board to put back the plaintiff-petitioner in possession of the suit premises. In this connection, it is pointed out that in exceptional fact situation the Wakf Board may assume direct management of the Wakf Estate under Sections 65, 67 of the Act. In the instant case, there is no notification under Section 65, 67 of the Act taking over the direct management of the Wakf Estate by the Board. In this connection, it is pointed out that in exceptional fact situation the Wakf Board may assume direct management of the Wakf Estate under Sections 65, 67 of the Act. In the instant case, there is no notification under Section 65, 67 of the Act taking over the direct management of the Wakf Estate by the Board. According to the counsel for Respondent No. 5, Tribunal in Paragraph 55 of its judgment rightly observed that no relief can be allowed to the petitioner in absence of Salimuddin, the Mutawalli being impleaded as defendant in the suit. 35. In view of the aforesaid submissions counsel for Respondent No. 5 observed that this Court may declare the judgment impugned as void ab initio, non est and without jurisdiction and remit back the suit to the court of Munsif for disposal in accordance with law. 36. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties about the merit of the claim raised by the plaintiff-petitioner that suit property could not have been surrendered by Defendant No. 1 under so-called surrender letter dated 31.5.1996 without the consent of the other coparceners, it is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection taken on behalf of Respondent No. 5 that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, a civil revision lies to the High Court under the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 85 of the Wakf Act, plaintiff-petitioner having filed writ petition that too after more than one year of the passing of the impugned judgment, the writ petition should not have been entertained as there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, appears to be misconceived as it is well settled that one year time taken to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal is not inordinate delay. There is no difficulty in entertaining writ petition challenging an order passed by the Tribunal within reasonable time of the making of the order. There is no difficulty in entertaining writ petition challenging an order passed by the Tribunal within reasonable time of the making of the order. Further submission of the counsel for the respondents that Tribunal cannot be vested with the jurisdiction which it does not have and the order rendered by it is wholly without jurisdiction, void ab initio and non est, and the suit having been transferred to the Tribunal, judgment rendered by the Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction as Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute with regard to the tenancy of the Wakf property is also misconceived as it was the Defendant No. 5 and Wakf Board, Defendant No. 4 requested the competent court of Civil jurisdiction to transfer the suit to the Tribunal which request was objected to by the petitioners but refused by the Civil Court under order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the Munsif against which petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 766/2009 which was dismissed by the High Court with cost of Rs. 3,000/- and after payment of the cost by the plaintiff-petitioner suit was heard by Tribunal and impugned judgment rendered. It was the request of Defendant Nos. 4,5 to transfer the suit from the competent court of civil jurisdiction to the Tribunal, in my opinion, they cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time by asserting that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit and the suit be remitted back to the Civil Court for fresh adjudication. 37. Having rejected the preliminary objection taken on behalf of Respondent No. 5 the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties is required to be considered in the light of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties. The genealogical table given at the foot of the plaint is not in dispute as would appear from paragraph 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1,2. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that plaintiff-petitioner is the grandson of Defendant No. 1 and nephew of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is the son of Ram Sharan Ram who predeceased intestate with his younger brother Ram Sewak Ram. 1,2. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that plaintiff-petitioner is the grandson of Defendant No. 1 and nephew of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is the son of Ram Sharan Ram who predeceased intestate with his younger brother Ram Sewak Ram. After death of Ram Sharan Ram, Ram Sewak Ram became the Karta of the joint Hindu family of which Defendant No.1, his three sons Surendra Kumar, father of the plaintiff, Dilip Kumar, Defendant No. 2, Suresh Kumar, plaintiff and his three brothers were the members. Existence of the joint family of which Ram Sewak Ram was the Karta is established from perusal of the Ration Card issued under the order of the Government by the Secretary to the Government, Exhibit-9/A dated 2.12.1949. After death of Ram Sharan Ram, Ram Sewak Ram having become Karta of the joint family managed the affairs of the joint family including the hotel business in the suit premises let out to the joint family by the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate which owned the suit premises as is evident from perusal of 46 rent receipts (Exhibits- 8 to 8/45) granted by the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board through Mutawalli Md. Suleman for the period 1947-1955 indicating payment of rent for the suit premises by the tenant Ram Sewak Ram. Aforesaid fact is also evident from perusal of letter dated 16.5.1949 issued by the Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. informing Ram Sewak Ram/Lall that sum of Rs. 41/- paid by him as advance on 18.11.1948 will be adjusted towards his Account No. 6966 and balance of Rs. 9/- should be paid on or before 11.7.1949 which was paid vide receipt granted in the name of Sri Ram Sewak Lall/Ram and the electricity bill dated 10th September, 1949, 9th December, 1949, 13th June, 1950, 18th April, 1950, 15th May, 1950, 14th November, 1950, 15th December, 1950 Exhibit- 1Z-1Z-9 including Registration Certificate granted by the Inspecting Officer under Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 dated 18.9.1955, Exhibit-10 and platform fee receipt dated 23.4.1953, 5.5.1954, 6.12.1955 (Exhibit-11,11/1,11/2) granted by the Commissioners of Patna Municipal Corporation to Ram Sewak Ram occupier of the shop premises for encroachment of the pavement in front of the shop premises. 38. 38. Ram Sewak Ram having become old handed over the affairs of the joint family including hotel business to his only nephew Defendant No. 1 who began to manage the affairs of the joint family including hotel business during the lifetime of Ram Sewak Ram. In January, 1960 Ram Sewak Ram left for his heavenly abode, as has been asserted by the plaintiff and not disputed by Defendant Nos. 1,2 or other defendants, whereafter Defendant No. 1 became the Karta of the joint Hindu family of which earlier Ram Sewak Ram was the Karta and continued to manage the affairs of the joint family including hotel business, which would appear from the receipt dated 16.2.1960, 27.8.1960, 9.9.1960, Exhibit-11/3, 11/4,11/5 granted by the Commissioners of the Patna Municipal Corporation for encroachment of the pavement in front of the suit premises in the name of Ram Sewak Ram but payment was received through Defendant No. 1. After the death of Ram Sewak Ram/Lall also Defendant No. 1 continued to manage the affairs of the joint family including hotel business until he became ill, which is evident from prescription dated 16.11.1967 and other prescriptions dated 29.9.1980, 12.3.1986, 1.4.1986, Exhibit-7 series. After illness of Defendant No. 1 dispute in regard to management/accounting of the hotel business arose between the coparceners of the joint family and the hotel business remained closed for several years although plaintiff made attempt to resume the hotel business on 21.3.1996, which is evident from letters written by the plaintiff himself dated 19.3.1996, 3.11.1996, 19.10.1996, Exhibit-3 series addressed to the Chairman of the Sunni Wakf Board, Superintendent of Police, Patna and the Officer in charge, Pirbahore Police Station including the statement recorded by Parmanand Choudhary dated 17.4.1996 in Complaint Case No. 544/96 (Exhibit-4) but he could not resume the hotel business in the suit premises and as the request made under letter (Exhibit-3) could not succeed he filed the present suit on 4.10.1996 impleading Devendra Prasad Sinha, grandfather of the plaintiff as Defendant No. 1 and uncle Dilip Kumar and Suresh Kumar as Defendant Nos. 2,3 and Sunni Wakf Board as Defendant No. 4. 39. Defendant Nos. 2,3 and Sunni Wakf Board as Defendant No. 4. 39. Defendant Nos. 1,2 filed their written statement on 10.1.1997 stating that the suit premises was taken on rent by Defendant No. 1 and was demolished at the instance of Patna Municipal Corporation and another construction raised by the landlord (Mutawalli) from the funds of Defendant No. 1 who was allowed to continue as tenant in the shop premises. It was further stated that he continued to make payment of rent to the landlord i.e. the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate and in token of having paid the rent receipts were also granted to Defendant No. 1. In paragraph 10 of the written statement Defendant No. 1 asserted that he surrendered the tenancy right with respect to the suit premises on 31.5.1996 in favour of the Wakf Estate by filing application before the Mutawalli of the Wakf and handed over vacant possession of the suit premises in favour of the Wakf Estate. In Paragraph 14 Defendant No. 1 admitted the genealogical table given at the foot of the plaint but he disputed the assertion of the plaintiff that Ram Sewak Ram ever carried hotel business in the suit premises. He also challenged and denied that Ram Sewak Ram ever handed over the tenancy of the shop in question to Defendant No. 1 and that Defendant No. 1 succeeded to the tenancy of the shop in question through Ram Sewak Ram. He also asserted in the said paragraph that the suit premises all through remained under his tenancy till the same was surrendered to the Wakf Estate. 40. Defendant No. 4 filed written statement through Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate on 19.11.1996 stating in Paragraph 12 that Defendant No. 4 has no knowledge regarding Ram Sewak Ram carrying any hotel business in the suit premises with further statement that Defendant No. 1 was the tenant in respect of the suit premises all along who surrendered his tenancy right in favour of the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate on 31.5.1996 and delivered vacant possession of the premises to the Wakf Estate in which Kiran Devi has been inducted as tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 600/- which is being paid by her. The date of induction of Kiran Devi as tenant in the suit premises was, however, not indicated in the written statement filed by Defendant No. 4. 41. 600/- which is being paid by her. The date of induction of Kiran Devi as tenant in the suit premises was, however, not indicated in the written statement filed by Defendant No. 4. 41. Defendant No. 5 also filed her written statement stating in Paragraphs 12, 13 that she has no knowledge regarding Ram Sewak Ram ever conducting hotel business in the suit premises which was under the tenancy of Defendant No. 1 who surrendered his tenancy right in favour of the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate under letter dated 31.5.1996 and delivered possession of the suit premises due to his ailment and old age and gave vacant possession to the Mutawalli whereafter she was inducted as tenant of the premises by the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. 42. Aforesaid case, set out by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2,4,5 in their separate written statement as also in the evidence is fit to be rejected for their failure to explain and refute plaintiff’s case that Ram Sewak Ram became the Karta of the joint family after the death of his elder brother Ram Sharan Ram as would appear from Ration Card dated 02.12.1949 (Exhibit-9/A). Having became the Karta of the joint family he managed the joint family affairs and the hotel business in the suit premises which is evident from the 46 rent receipts (Exhibits 8 to 8/45) granted by Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate between the year 1947 to 1955, the correspondence concerning electric connection dated 16.5.1949, the electricity bill raised between 10.9.1949-15.12.1950 (Exhibits 1Z-1 to1Z-9), the certificate of registration dated 18.9.1955 (Exhibit-10) granted under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 including the platform fee receipt dated 23.4.1953, 5.5.1954, 6.12.1955 (Exhibits- 11,11/1,11/2) for encroaching the pavement abutting the shop on the Ashok Raj Path opposite PMCH gate and the oral evidence of D.W.2, who examined himself as D.W.-14, paragraph 72. Further the evidence of D.W.5, D.W.6, D.W. 10 which has already been quoted above in paragraph 15, 16 and 18. Further the evidence of D.W.5, D.W.6, D.W. 10 which has already been quoted above in paragraph 15, 16 and 18. Aforesaid evidence categorically establish that the shop in question was managed by Ram Sewak Ram after he became Karta of the joint family till he became ill, may be with the assistance of Defendant No. 1 as after the death of Ram Sewak Ram in January, 1960 Defendant No. 1 deposited the platform fee for encroaching the pavement abutting the shop vide receipt dated 16.2.1960, 27.8.1960, 9.9.1960 (Exhibits 11/3,11/4,11/5) in the name of Ram Sewak Ram but the deposit of platform fee is made through Defendant No. 1. 43. Case set up by the defendants that the shop was settled with Defendant No. 1 and was demolished at the instance of Patna Municipal Corporation and thereafter with the funds of Defendant No. 1 new shop premises was raised by the landlord is to be rejected as not even a chit of paper except rent receipts (Exhibit-2 to 2/84) for the years 1967 till 1987, receipts from the Water Board for the years 1676-1993, Exhibit 6 to 6/30 and Exhibit-12 to 12/64 and electricity bill receipts from 06.02.1985 to 6.2.1991, Exhibit 1 to 1/Z has been produced to indicate that the suit premises was let out in favour of Defendant No. 1. Rent receipts, Water Board receipt and electricity bill receipt aforesaid obtained by Defendant No. 1 are subsequent to the death of the original tenant i.e. Karta of the joint family Ram Sewak Ram from whom Defendant No. 1 succeeded to the tenancy along with the other coparceners of the joint family. On the basis of the subsequent receipts it cannot be said that the tenancy is created only in favour of Defendant No. 1 ignoring the other descendants/successors of Ram Sewak Ram. Reference in this connection is also required to be made to the statement of Defendant No. 4 who examined himself as D.W. 2 paragraph 24 wherein he has categorically stated that in the Wakf Board there is no Kirayanama executed in favour of Devendra Babu, Defendant No. 1. 44. Reference in this connection is also required to be made to the statement of Defendant No. 4 who examined himself as D.W. 2 paragraph 24 wherein he has categorically stated that in the Wakf Board there is no Kirayanama executed in favour of Devendra Babu, Defendant No. 1. 44. The case set out by the defendants regarding surrender letter dated 31.5.96 is also fit to be rejected as after the death of Ram Sewak Ram, the Karta of the Hindu undivided family, Defendant No. 1 became the Karta of the Hindu undivided family and as per the tenets of Hindu Law Defendant No. 1 was not entitled to surrender the tenanted premises without the consent of the other coparceners of the Hindu undivided family. In order to establish his personal tenancy over the suit premises Defendant No. 1 issued surrender letter dated 31.5.1996 but the said Surrender letter dated 31.5.1996 (Ext.-F and X) is also not reliable and ante dated as Exhibit-F has been signed by Devendra Prasad Sinha and Mutawalli Salimuddin in Urdu but copy of the same surrender letter dated 31.5.1996 (Exhibit-X) filed by Mutawalli (D.W.-10) has been signed by Devendra Prasad Sinha and witness Ajijuddin in English and there is no signature of the Mutawalli over Exhibit-X. Similarly reliance placed by the Defendants over the Kirayanama Exhibit-13, 13/1, X-2 is also fit to be rejected as the aforesaid three Kirayanama have been brought in existence on 23.8.1999 or thereafter with a view to mislead the courts that they were in existence on 5.6.1996 when Defendant No. 5 was put in possession of the suit premises. Reliance place on the document Exhibit-G dated 15.4.1959, which is brought on record to establish that the tenanted premises was demolished and again raised pursuant to Exhibit-G dated 15.4.1959 is also not worthy of acceptance and fit to be rejected as bare perusal of Exhibit-G shows that the same is neither rejected nor the stamp paper over which Ext. G has been typed indicate the seal of treasury and the stamp vender including his licence number suggestive of the fact that document is ante dated document, fabricated after the filing of the suit and written statement dated 10.1.1997. G has been typed indicate the seal of treasury and the stamp vender including his licence number suggestive of the fact that document is ante dated document, fabricated after the filing of the suit and written statement dated 10.1.1997. Exhibit-G is also falsified from the evidence of D.W.-2 examined on behalf of Defendant No. 4 Mansoor Alam employee of the Wakf Board who categorically stated in Paragraph 24 that “nsosUnz ckcw dk oDiQ cksMZ esa dksbZ fdjk;kukek ugha gSA” as also the fact that neither Defendant No. 1,2 nor Defendant Nos. 4, 5 placed on record any documentary evidence to indicate that the tenanted premises has been demolished under orders of Patna Municipal Corporation and raised after sanction of another map. Exhibit-G is further falsified from perusal of Exhibits 11 to 11/4 i.e. the platform tax receipt granted in connection with the tenanted premises by the Patna Municipal Corporation vide Exhibits 11/3 to 11/5 dated 16.2.1960, 27.8.1960, 9.9.1960 thus it is crystal clear that Ram Sewak Ram was tenant of the suit premises being Karta of the Hindu undivided family of which the plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1,2,3 as also father of the plaintiff Surendra Kumar were member who inherited the suit premises after the death of Ram Sewak Ram in January, 1960. 45. In view of my findings above, there is no difficulty in concluding that the suit premises was let out to Ram Sewak Ram who carried joint family hotel business in the said premises until his death i.e. in January, 1960 whereafter Defendant No. 1 became the Karta of the family and succeeded to the joint family business including the suit premises along with his sons and grandsons constituting the joint family, as such, without the consent of the other members of the joint family could not have surrendered the tenancy in favour of Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate through the so-called surrender letter dated 31.5.1996. 46. Submission raised on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4,5 that suit could not have proceeded in absence of Mutawalli is also misconceived as Mutawalli being the appointee of the Wakf Board and the Board being impleaded as Defendant No. 4 was already represented through the Board. 46. Submission raised on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4,5 that suit could not have proceeded in absence of Mutawalli is also misconceived as Mutawalli being the appointee of the Wakf Board and the Board being impleaded as Defendant No. 4 was already represented through the Board. In any case, Mutawalli was examined as a witness on behalf of Defendant No. 5 vide D.W. 10, as such, the point raised that in absence of Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate being impleaded as defendant in the suit, the suit could not have proceeded and upheld by the Tribunal in Paragraph 55 of its judgment is wholly misconceived and fit to be rejected. 47. Having considered the pleadings and the evidence set forth by the parties, I am of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is not only fit to be set aside but a direction is also required to be given to the Board (Respondent No. 4) to dispossess Respondent No. 5 from the suit premises and to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The other members of the joint Hindu family shall, however, be entitled to raise their grievance against the plaintiff-petitioner. 48. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, impugned judgment dated 02.11.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Bihar Wakf Tribunal, Patna in Title Suit No. 59/98 of 1996/2009 is set aside with the aforesaid direction contained in Paragraph 47 above.