Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 34 (KER)

Salafi Trust v. P. Nazeer

2013-01-15

K.HEMA, P.S.GOPINATHAN

body2013
Judgment 1. Both these revision petitions were filed under Section 89 (3) of the Wakf Act against a common judgment and separate decrees in O.S.No.9/2004 and 10/2004 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. 2. The bone of contention in both these revision petitions is the post of Muthavalli of the Wakf by name Salafi Trust, now having a mosque and some other structures on a property comprised in survey No.527/4 A, B & C and measuring 17 cents, the property which is descried in detail in the schedule attached to O.S.No.10/2004 against the judgment and decree of which C.R.P.338/06 was filed by the plaintiffs therein. 3. The respondents in C.R.P.No.339/2006 instituted the suit O.S.No.9/2004. The 1st respondent/1st plaintiff was styled as Salafi Juma Masjid Mahal Committee. It was represented by 2nd and 3rd respondents (2nd and 3rd plaintiffs) who were shown as the President and Secretary of the Committee. They contended that they are the founder of the Salafi Juma Masjid, Salafi Shopping Complex and other institutions built up by them and it was registered before the Wakf Board and that respondents 2 and 3 are the persons in management and administration of the Wakf. It was further contended that the Masjid was constructed out of the public fund collected by the Mahal Committee. Defendants 1 to 5 (revision petitioners) are the Salafi Trust and its office bearers. The 6th and 7th defendants (4th and 5th respondents in the revision) are the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Wakf Board and the Kerala Wakf Board. It was contended that the 1st defendant Trust had no role in the administration of the Masjid or any other institution coming under the Wakf. The 1st plaintiff is the local unit of the Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen (‘K.N.M’ for short), wherein the members of the 1st defendant Trust were also members. In the year 2002, there was a faction fight in K.N.M. and as per the directions in C.M.A.240 to 243 of 2002 on the file of the District Court, Kozhikode, election was conducted and new office bearers took charge of K.N.M. and consequential changes had also taken place in the office of the 1st plaintiff committee and that the 3rd plaintiff was elected as the Secretary of the Committee and that defendants 1 to 5 were persons representing the rival factions and they were a minor group. Consequent to the election, defendants 3 to 5 were expelled from the Committee. Though such action was stayed by this Court, contending that the defendants 3 to 5 were attempting to interfere with the management of the Wakf and questioning their right to do so, plaintiffs preferred a complaint before the Wakf Board on 18.10.2003. An enquiry officer was appointed by the Wakf Board and a report was filed on 19.2.2004, wherein the enquiry officer had concluded that the 1st plaintiff Committee headed by plaintiffs 2 and 3 were in actual management and control of the Wakf. But ignoring the report, the 6th defendant, the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board, issued a certificate, copy of which was marked as Ext. B2 certifying that the 3rd defendant is the Muthavalli of the Wakf as Secretary of the Trust. According to the plaintiffs, that certificate is void as it didn't represent the real facts and violative of the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that defendants 1 to 5 were attempting to interfere with the management and administration of the Wakf. With these plea, the plaintiffs sought a decree declaring that Ext.B2 is void and that the defendants 1 to 5 had no right to interfere with the management and administration of the Wakf by the plaintiffs. 4. The 1st defendant Salafi Trust in O.S.9/2004 represented by its Secretary, the 3rd defendant, instituted the suit O.S.No.10/2004 as plaintiffs 1 and 2 with a plea that the 1st plaintiff Trust was registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Mattancherry on 30.9.1978 and as on the date of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff was the Secretary as per the resolution of the Board and that the plaint schedule mosque, shopping complex and other institutions were dedicated by the Trust and as the founder of the Wakf, it applied for registration and obtained the registration wherein the Secretary of the Trust was recorded as the Muthavalli of the Wakf. The sole defendant in the suit is the 3rd plaintiff in O.S. No.9/2004. It was further contended that the sole defendant was the Secretary of the local unit of the K.N.M. and a member of the split faction. The sole defendant in the suit is the 3rd plaintiff in O.S. No.9/2004. It was further contended that the sole defendant was the Secretary of the local unit of the K.N.M. and a member of the split faction. Claiming that the sole defendant was the person entitled to be in charge of the administration and management of the plaint schedule Wakf, he filed a suit as O.S.No.797/2002 before the Munsiffs court, Alappuzha, but it was dismissed. Some of the local members of the K.N.M. expressed their desire to associate with the 1st plaintiff Trust. The plaintiffs accepted their request and some of the members of the K.N.M. unit accordingly associated in the management and administration of the Wakf properties. Accordingly, on 1.12.1999 onwards the Secretary of K.N.M. unit became the Secretary of the Trust on a working arrangement without assigning or relinquishing the right of the management in favour the K.N.M. unit. The sole defendant was the Secretary of the K.N.M. unit for a short period. On 3.2.2002, he applied for leave for three months and entrusted his charge with the 2nd plaintiff, who was the then Joint Secretary of the Trust, and ever since the 2nd plaintiff had been discharging the duties of the Secretary of the Trust and managing the affairs of the Wakf. Subsequently, the 2nd plaintiff was elected as the Secretary of the Trust as per the decision of the Trust Board on 9.4.2004 and as such he was in administration and management of the Wakf as Muthavalli. The defendant had no manner of right to interfere with the management and administration of the Wakf. With these pleadings, the plaintiffs sought for a decree declaring that the 2nd plaintiff is the Secretary of the 1st plaintiff Trust and he is entitled to manage and administer the Wakf and that the defendant had no manner of right to interfere with the administration and management of the Wakf property. 5. With these pleadings, the plaintiffs sought for a decree declaring that the 2nd plaintiff is the Secretary of the 1st plaintiff Trust and he is entitled to manage and administer the Wakf and that the defendant had no manner of right to interfere with the administration and management of the Wakf property. 5. In O.S.No.9/2004, defendants 1 to 5 filed a written statement contending that the suit was barred by Section 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and that the document impugned in the suit is not a certificate but only a declaration containing the statement of facts and that the 1st plaintiff is not a legal entity capable to sue or to be sued and that the plaintiffs 2 and 3, who were only self assumed office bearers, were having no status under law and not entitled to institute the suit. Further, the pleadings in O.S.No.10/2004 was reiterated and prayed for dismissing the suit since the plaintiffs had no manner of right in the administration of the Wakf. 6. Defendants 6 and 7 filed a joint written statement contending that since no notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act was issued, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on that sole ground. It was also pleaded that the 3rd defendant is the Secretary of the 1st defendant Trust and therefore the certificate impugned in the suit is valid under law as it was issued with reference to the entries made in the Wakf Register which is duly maintained by the Board in accordance with the law. 7. The sole defendant in O.S.No.10/2004 filed a written statement almost reiterating the pleadings in the plaint in O.S.No.9/2004. It was also stated that the Wakf was managed by the Juma Masjid Mahal Committee and not by the Trust and that the rooms in the shopping complex were let out by the Mahal Committee and that the records maintained by the Committee would show that it was in management of the mosque and other institutions under the Wakf and that the Committee was under the direct supervision of K.N.M. and that the defendant, being the elected Secretary of the Committee, alone had the right to manage the Wakf property. It was also contended that the 2nd plaintiff was never the Secretary of the Mahal Committee and he had no occasion to manage the Wakf properties. It was also contended that the 2nd plaintiff was never the Secretary of the Mahal Committee and he had no occasion to manage the Wakf properties. The allegation that the defendant had taken leave for three months was denied and contended that the 2nd plaintiff was not the Muthavalli and he had nothing to do with the founding of the Wakf or the administration and management of the Wakf. It was also contended that the report of the enquiry submitted before the Board stating that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9/2004 were managing the Wakf is true and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. Upon looking the pleadings in O.S.No.9/2004, the following issues were raised: 1. Whether suit is barred by S.89 of Wakf Act, 1995? 2. Whether document issued by 7th defendant on 24.3.04 is void and whether such a prayer for declaration is maintainable under law? 3. Whether plaintiffs are in management and administration of plaint schedule Wakf and are entitled to obtain a decree for injunction against defendants 1 to 5? 4. Reliefs and costs? In O.S.No.10/2004, the following issues were raised: 1. Whether the second plaintiff is entitled to declaration that he is the Secretary of first plaintiff? 2. Whether he is in management and administration of plaint schedule Wakf properties and he is entitled to obtain injunction against defendant in that respect? 3. Reliefs and costs? 9. Both suits were tried jointly. O.S.No.10/2004 was taken as the leading case. Evidence was recorded in O.S.No.10/2004. The 2nd plaintiff therein was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A24 were marked. The defendant therein and five others were examined as DWs 1 to 6. Exts.B1 to D68 were marked. 10. Issue No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.9/2004 and issue No.1 in O.S.No.10/2004 were considered together. The Tribunal below, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that PW1 was the Secretary of the Trust and it is an undisputed fact. Therefore, what is certified in Ext.B2 concerning his status is absolutely true and is not liable to be disturbed by a declaratory decree as sought for in O.S.No.9/2004. It was further found that 17 cents of property in the name of the Trust were registered before the Wakf Board with No.6406/RA and it is also a fact proved by Ext.A12 Register of Wakfs kept by the Wakf Board. It was further found that 17 cents of property in the name of the Trust were registered before the Wakf Board with No.6406/RA and it is also a fact proved by Ext.A12 Register of Wakfs kept by the Wakf Board. Though it was found that to sustain a suit against the Wakf Board notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act is a pre-requisite and it was found that the suit O.S.No.9/2004 was instituted without notice and notice is pre-requisite and that the suit for declaring Ext.B2 as void is to be dismissed, no specific finding regarding the maintainability of the suit was arrived at by the Tribunal. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.10/2004 was answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. Issue No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.9/2004 and issue No.2 and 3 in the other suit were considered jointly. Though no issue regarding the maintainability of the suit O.S. No. 9/2004 since the 1st plaintiff Committee was not registered and the legal status to sue was raised, that dispute was considered in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. The Tribunal below arrived at a conclusion that the 1st plaintiff Mahal Committee is a local unit affiliated to K.N.M., which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 21/1986 with Registration No.2/1957 and that the Mahal Committee is one of the Sakha units affiliated to the apex body. Every local unit of K.N.M. being in enjoyment of affiliated status in the whole State, it possesses the corporate personality with right to sue and to be sued in courts of law. It was further found that Ext.B68 bye-law of K.N.M. proves how each Sakha unit is affiliated to the apex body and it enjoys corporate status and that the contention that the Mahal Committee has no legal status and no bye-law governing it has no merit. 12. Referring to the definition of Muthavalli and Exts.B3 to B7, the so called Marriage Registers, B8 to B12 vouchers, B15 to B19 Marriage consent letters, B41 to 44 Minutes Books and B31 to B34 lease deeds and relying upon the defence evidence, the Tribunal below arrived at a finding that though the Wakf was registered as Salafi Trust and that PW1 was the Secretary of the Trust. But, by course of time, the administration and management of the Wakf came into the hands of DW1. But, by course of time, the administration and management of the Wakf came into the hands of DW1. Consequently, the suit O.S.No.9/2004 was partly decreed granting a prohibitory injunction against defendants 1 to 4 and their men from interfering with or obstructing the management and administration of the Wakf which was scheduled in O.S.No.10/2004. It appears that to cure the omission to schedule the property in O.S.No.9/2004, to sustain the decree, the schedule in O.S.No.10/2004 was added to the decree in O.S.No.9/2004. The prayer for declaration that Ext.B2 certificate was null and void was declined. Though PW1 was declared as the Secretary of the Salafi Trust, the injunction sought against the defendant O.S.No.10/2004 was declined. Assailing the above decree and judgment, these revision petitions were preferred. 13. We have heard Adv. Sri. Azad Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Adv. Sri. Devan Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and Adv. Sri. Abul Hassan, the learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board. 14. For a correct appraisal of the plea of the revision petitioners that the suit O.S.No.9/2004 is bad as the Committee is not a registered entity, we have carefully gone through the plaint in O.S.No.9/2004. We fail to find any whisper in the pleadings that the 1st plaintiff Committee is a registered entity or that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are persons authorised to represent the 1st plaintiff Committee. There is also no pleading in the plaint that K.N.M. is a registered entity or that the 1st plaintiff is a subsidiary of the K.N.M. We have also gone through the evidence on record. We find that the conclusions arrived by the Tribunal below that K.N.M. is a registered Society and 1st plaintiff is a subsidiary of the Society is not supported by any pleadings or evidence on record. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect. 15. For a correct appraisal of the dispute, a reading of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C) would be relevant. Order 1, Rule 8 reads as follows: "8. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect. 15. For a correct appraisal of the dispute, a reading of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C) would be relevant. Order 1, Rule 8 reads as follows: "8. One person may sue of defend on behalf of all in same interest:- (1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, - (a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested; (b) the Court may direct that one or more of such person may, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. (2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested, either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct. (3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. (4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of Rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under Rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2). (5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit. (5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit. (6) A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be." Going through the above provision, we find that when one or more such persons are sued or be sued where there are numerous persons having the same interest, permission shall be obtained from the court for suing or being sued and that before granting permission or direction, at the expense of the plaintiff notice regarding the institution of the suit has to be issued to all persons so interested, either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, notice shall be issued by public advertisement. Admittedly, no such permission or direction was obtained and no such notice was served upon the persons interested or any notice was duly published. For that reason, we find that the suit O.S.No.9/2004 shall fail. 16. Our above conclusion is fortified by the decisions reported in Narayanan Nambudiri versus Kurichithanam Educational Society [AIR 1959 Kerala 379, 1957 KLT 932 ], Corporation of Trivandrum versus K.Narayana Pillai [ 1968 KLT 285 ] and the decision reported in Commons Club versus P.M.Mathew [ 1982 KLT 15 ]. In Narayanan Nambudiri's case at paragraph 3, a Single Judge of this Court held as follows: "3. Then there is the objection that the suit itself is not properly constituted and that therefore the sanction under 0.1, R.8 should not have been issued. It is pointed out that the plaintiff in the suit is the Kurichithanam Educational Society which is an unregistered society and that such an unregistered society is not a juridical person and cannot figure as a plaintiff. Even though the society is described as the plaintiff the individual claiming to be its present President has brought forward the suit as its representative. Even though the society is described as the plaintiff the individual claiming to be its present President has brought forward the suit as its representative. Since the society is itself an unregistered one, the individual claiming to be its President cannot represent the society and maintain the suit on behalf of the society." In Corporation of Trivandrum versus K.Narayana Pillai's case, at paragraph 10, another Single Judge, referring to an Allahabad decision, held as follows: "[T]he Secretary of a club or other association cannot sue alone in respect of a matter in which the Association is interested even if he is authorised so to do by a resolution of the members of the association. The suit must be brought by all the members of the association, or by the Secretary on his own behalf and on behalf of the other members under Order 1 Rule 8. (See Mohammadan Association versus Bakshi [(1884) ILR.6 Allahabad 284]" In Commons Club's case, referring to the Narayanan Nambudiri's case, certain other decisions and Halsbury's Law of England, a Division Bench of this Court, at paragraph 13, after quoting the statements, held that, in our opinion, decision in Narayanan Nambudiri's case encapsulates the correct law on the point. Therefore, we hold that the suit O.S.No.9/94 is bad for want for sanction under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. 17. We also notice that Order VII, Rule 3 C.P.C. mandates that where the subject matter of the suit is in respect of an immovable property the plaint shall contain the description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Curiously, we notice that no such description as mandated by Order VII, Rule 3 C.P.C. is given in the plaint in O.S.No.9/2004. For a correct appraisal of the case, we find that a reading of Order VII, Rule 3 would be relevant. "3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property:- Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaintiff shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers." 8. Evidently in O.S.No.9/04, no property is scheduled. Evidently in O.S.No.9/04, no property is scheduled. In the absence of description of the property so as to be identified the suit O.S.No.9/2004 is also bad. Going by the judgment impugned, we find that the Tribunal had in fact noticed that omission. As a matter of procedure, the suit ought to have been returned to the plaintiff but not returned. To circumvent the material omission regarding the identity of the property, the Tribunal below adopted a device to accept the schedule in O.S.No.10/2004. Suffice to state that such a procedure adopted by the Tribunal below is not sustainable in law. It is for the plaintiff to put it in black and white, the description of the property over which relief was sought. Trial court shall not assume the description of the property and add a schedule to the decree by borrowing from a suit instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff. Therefore, on that reason also, we are inclined to arrive at a conclusion that decree in O.S.No.9/2004 is not sustainable. 19. We had earlier stated that in finding that the administration and management of the Wakf was vested with DW1, the Tribunal below in addition to the relying upon the definition of Muthavalli in the Wakf Act, gave reliance to Exts.B3 to B12, B15 to B19, B31 to B34 and B41 to B44. The evidence of DWs 2 to 6 were also relied upon. DW1 had to admit in unambiguous terms in cross examination that as per the Register of Wakf, the Secretary of the Salafi Trust is the Muthavalli. Though he was reluctant to admit that PW1 is the Secretary of the Trust, he had admitted that fact impliedly in cross examination and also would depose that PW1 claims to be the Secretary of the Salafi Trust. The only disagreement is that he is not admitting that PW1 is the Secretary of the Trust. DW1 also would admit that he was also associated with the Trust and had participated in the meeting of the Trust till 2002. Though he would claim that he was elected as the Muthavalli in the year 1996, there is no supporting document. The only disagreement is that he is not admitting that PW1 is the Secretary of the Trust. DW1 also would admit that he was also associated with the Trust and had participated in the meeting of the Trust till 2002. Though he would claim that he was elected as the Muthavalli in the year 1996, there is no supporting document. Admittedly, there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that such election was duly notified to the Wakf Board or that he had transacted with the Wakf Board on any occasion as if he was the Muthavalli of the Wakf. He had further contended that to remove the Muthavalli he had filed a complaint before the Wakf Board. Though he had no document with him to show that such complaint was filed by him, he would admit that no decision was taken by the Board on such complaint. Though he would depose that there were 50 members in the Mahal committee of which he was the Secretary, no document was produced by him either to show that any meeting of the members were convened or that any decision was taken to constitute a committee for the administration and management of the Wakf or that he was elected as the Secretary of the committee to claim the right of Muthavalli. He would concede in cross examination that before 13.2.2002 he was acting as the Secretary of the Trust and had applied for leave. During that time, PW1 was the Joint Secretary and that, while going on leave, the charge as Secretary of the Trust was handed over to PW1. He would also concede that the suit property in O.S.No.10/2004 was acquired by the Trust and during the period of acquisition, he was no way involved with the affairs of the Trust, The building situated in the plaint property were registered in the local self Government in the name of the Trust. DW1 had also to admit that electric and telephone connections are also in the name of the Trust. 20. DW2 was examined to bring on record that since 1998 he was working as Imam as well as Arabic teacher in Al-Falas Arabic College and that his salary and other administrative expenses of the Masjid and Al-Falas College were met by the Mahal Committee wherein DW1 was the Secretary. 20. DW2 was examined to bring on record that since 1998 he was working as Imam as well as Arabic teacher in Al-Falas Arabic College and that his salary and other administrative expenses of the Masjid and Al-Falas College were met by the Mahal Committee wherein DW1 was the Secretary. He had also given evidence that Ext.B45 is the copy of the statement given by DW6, who enquired about the affairs of the Wakf. His previous statement is not in any way reliable. Independent of Ext.B45, the credibility of the witness is to be considered. In cross examination he had to admit that he had instituted a suit as O.S.No.17/2004 against the Trust and that it was dismissed. Therefore DW2 is an interested witness who had got an axe to grind against the Trust of which PW1 is the Secretary. Though it was alleged that there were documents to show that he was appointed as Arabic teacher and Imam, he has to admit in cross examination that no such document was in his possession. It was also admitted that his appointment was never approved by the Wakf Board and that he was no way connected with the affairs of the Mahal committee and was not aware of the internal affairs of the Committee. Such being the evidence of DW2, in cross examination, he, who is an interested witness is not at all reliable to come to a conclusion that DW1 was managing the affairs of the Wakf. 21. DW3 was examined as if a teacher in the Madrasa. He had proved Ext.B48, a copy of the statement given by him before DW6, during the enquiry conducted by DW6. Ext.B48 is no way relevant or admissible. In cross examination he would depose that he is one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.15/2004 instituted against PW1 and that as on the date of the examination, that case was pending. He is also an interested witness who is on logger heads with the Trust. He had also to admit that there is no document appointing him as the teacher or that his appointment was communicated to the Wakf Board. Therefore, DW3 is not a better witness thanDW2. 22. DW4 is a tenant in respect of Door No.XXIV/14. He is also an interested witness who is on logger heads with the Trust. He had also to admit that there is no document appointing him as the teacher or that his appointment was communicated to the Wakf Board. Therefore, DW3 is not a better witness thanDW2. 22. DW4 is a tenant in respect of Door No.XXIV/14. According to DW4, he obtained the building on lease in 1993 and was running an establishment by name Bague constructions and that the Mahal Committee was managing the affairs of the Wakf and that he had given Ext.49 statement before DW6. In cross examination, he would admit that the Salafi Trust had filed O.S.No.19/2004 for evicting him from the building mentioned earlier. He had no knowledge about the affairs of the Wakf or the Mahal Committee and he is not aware as to in whose favour the Wakf was registered. In fact, the evidence of DW4 would contain an implied admission that the Trust is the landlord of the building which he was occupying as a tenant. His motive against the Trust is apparent. Therefore, his evidence is also not at all reliable to come to a conclusion that DW1 was managing or administering the Wakf or any establishment under the Wakf. 23. DW5 was examined as if he is the Muadeen of the Salafi Madrassa. In chief affidavit he would affirm that the affairs of the Mosque, Wakf and its assets were being managed and administered by the Salafi Masjid Mahal Committee wherein DW1 is the Secretary and he had given Ext.B46 statement before DW6. In cross examination he had to admit that he is one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.15/2004 filed against PW1 and that the said suit was dismissed. Therefore, he is also on enimical terms with the office bearers of the Trust. He had no document to show that he was employed in the Madrasa as averred in the chief affidavit. He had also to admit that he was no way involved with the working of the committee or was aware whether DW1 had worked as the Secretary of the Trust at any time or not. Such being his evidence in cross examination, he is also not better than DWs 2 to 4. 24. DW6 was the Head Clerk attached to the Wakf Board. Such being his evidence in cross examination, he is also not better than DWs 2 to 4. 24. DW6 was the Head Clerk attached to the Wakf Board. He was examined to prove that he was deputed to conduct an enquiry regarding the affairs of the Wakf and that Ext.B1 is the report filed by him. The evidence of DWs1 and 6 would show that Ext.B1 was not approved by the Wakf Board and that Ext.B2 certificate was issued while Ext.B1 report was before the Wakf Board. In the above circumstance, we are not inclined to accept Ext.B1 as a report of enquiry or any of the statements recorded by DW6. 25. Now coming to the evidence of PW1, he would affirm that he was the Secretary of the Trust as on the date of the institution of the suit. That contention was accepted by the Tribunal below. No cross appeal is filed by the contesting respondents. From the Bar it is not disputed also. Ext.A6 coupled with the evidence of PW1 would show that for sometime DW1 was associated with the affairs of the Trust and he was acting as the Secretary of the Trust also and that on 13.2.2002 he availed leave and Ext.A6 leave application was submitted by DW1. ExtA16 would show that after accepting Ext.A6, on 16.10.2002 a communication was sent stating that the Trust had taken over the administration and management of the Wakf. The evidence of PW1 also would show that as Muthavalli he had been administering the affairs of the Wakf and that the Trust was remitting due contribution to the Wakf Board. Exts.A18,A19,A20 and A21 issued by the Wakf Board would support the evidence of PW1 on that aspect. Exts.A22 and A24 assessments made by the Wakf Board would show that the Secretary of the Salafi Trust was the Muthavalli. ExtA23 notice issued by Wakf Board to PW1 also would support the above conclusion. Exts.A10 and A15 are basic tax receipts and A14 is the tax receipt issued from the municipality. All were issued in favour of the Trust and were possessed by PW1. Exts.A8 and A9 lease agreements also would support the case of PW1. On the other hand, DW1 would give reliance to Exts.31 to B34 and contend that lease deeds were executed in favour of DW1. All were issued in favour of the Trust and were possessed by PW1. Exts.A8 and A9 lease agreements also would support the case of PW1. On the other hand, DW1 would give reliance to Exts.31 to B34 and contend that lease deeds were executed in favour of DW1. Curiously none of these documents were marked through the so called lesees who were alleged to have executed the same. So, no reliance can be given to those documents. Ext.B34 appears to be the one executed by DW4. But that document was not put to DW4 or proved through DW4. According to the revision petitioners, DW1 might have got executed those lease deeds from the tenants at a time when he was acting as the Secretary of the Trust and therefore no credibility can be given to the lease deeds executed in favour of DW1. Going through the evidence on record, we find merit in the statement made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Exts.B3 to B7 were produced as marriage registers. We find that those are not at all registers but certain loose pages styled as register. Ext.B3 would show that it refers to Salafi Mahal Committee. Exts.B4 to B37 would show that it refers to Salafi Juma Mahal Masjid. Now it is pertinent to note that DW1 had to admit that there were such committees in different names. Therefore, there is inconsistency even in the name of the committee of which DW1 is the Secretary. Admittedly none of these committees are registered under any of the statute or there is any material to come to a conclusion that any group of persons had elected any person including DW1 as any of the office bearer. So no reliance can be given to Exts.B3 to B7 to come to a conclusion that DW1 was administering or managing the Wakf. Exts.B8 to B12 were produced as if the vouchers obtained by DW1 for payment of wages or salary to persons employed under the Madrasa or any other establishment. None of these vouchers were proved through any of the witnesses though it is stated that the vouchers were issued by DWs 3 to 5. So, no reliance can be given to those documents as those were not legally proved to decide upon as to who is the Muthavalli. Ext.B15 to B19 are marriage consent letters. None of these vouchers were proved through any of the witnesses though it is stated that the vouchers were issued by DWs 3 to 5. So, no reliance can be given to those documents as those were not legally proved to decide upon as to who is the Muthavalli. Ext.B15 to B19 are marriage consent letters. Those documents also have no relevance to come to a conclusion regarding the administration and management of the Wakf. Much less, no credibility can be given to Exts.B41 to B44 as those documents are not better than the earlier mentioned documents. 26. Now the reliability of the entries made in the register of the Wakf Board can be considered. The Tribunal had arrived at a finding that Exts. B2, A2 and A12 were issued with reference to the register maintained in the Wakf Board. DW1 had to admit that as per the records maintained by the Wakf Board PW1 is the Muthavalli as the Secretary of the Trust. Though he had made a representation/complaint to the Wakf Board for removing PW1 from the post of Muthavalli, no action was taken so far. We find that registration number of the Wakf is the one pleaded in both suits. There is no case that DW1 or the other plaintiffs in O.S.No.9/2004 had registered the Wakf. Since the registration is one and the same relied upon by the plaintiffs and the defendants. Unless and until the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9/2004 establish that the entires therein were made in an illegal manner, we have no other go, but to give reliance to the entries in the statutory register maintained by the Wakf Board which is a statutory entity. 27. We also notice that the learned counsel for the Wakf Board would assert that Wakf was duly registered by the Salafi Trust and as per the documents, the Secretary of the Salafi Trust is the Muthavalli and at present PW1 is holding that post. Unless otherwise established, due regard shall be given to the entries contained in the statutory register maintained by the statutory authority as the entries were duly made in discharge of official duties. Adding to that, regarding the original entries made by the Board in the Register of Wakf, there is no quarrel. Plea is one that there is subsequent change of Muthavalli. Adding to that, regarding the original entries made by the Board in the Register of Wakf, there is no quarrel. Plea is one that there is subsequent change of Muthavalli. The plea of DW1 being of that nature, the burden is heavy on DW1 to establish the same. Unless and until it is otherwise established, it has to be presumed that there is no subsequent change. Though DW1 has got a case that by course of time, the management and administration of the Wakf fell on him, ever since 1996 when he was allegedly appointed as the Muthavalli, there is nothing on record to show that he had made any application before the Wakf Board to record him as the Muthavalli or to make necessary entries in the register to remove PW1 from the post of Muthavalli. 28. It is much argued from either side regarding the construction of the mosque and other establishments. While PW1 would contend that the Mosque and other establishments were constructed by the Trust, DW1 would contend that it was constructed by the Mahal Committee and KNM. We notice that from either side no document was produced regarding the construction. We also find that such documents are not relevant with respect to the dispute on hand. Both parties have not produced the statements of accounts or any proof to show that they had the means to erect improvements. Both of them would plea that public donation was obtained and construction was effected. Regarding that also there is no proof. In the absence of proof, we have no other go but to presume that the constructions were effected directly through Muthavalli or through by person/s authorized by Muthavalli irrespective of the source of donation. So long as a third person could not establish independent right, the right of PW1 as Muthavalli would no way be lost. However, such a dispute touching the construction of the mosque or other structures is not germane. The dispute before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier is regarding the post of Muthavalli and not as to who constructed the Mosque and other establishments. Unless and until otherwise it is proved, it is presumed that all improvements erected on the Wakf property belong to the Wakf irrespective of the question as to who constructed the same. 29. The dispute before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier is regarding the post of Muthavalli and not as to who constructed the Mosque and other establishments. Unless and until otherwise it is proved, it is presumed that all improvements erected on the Wakf property belong to the Wakf irrespective of the question as to who constructed the same. 29. On an evaluation of the entire evidence on record and going by the judgments impugned, we are inclined to accept the plea of the revision petitioners and to reject the plea of the contesting respondent. Being a civil case and the parties on either side had adduced the evidence, even if there is failure on the side of PW1 to establish that the Mosque and other structures were erected by the Trust and had been paying salary to the employees and meeting the expenditure, since the plea of DW1 is found not acceptable, the plea of PW1 is accepted especially because as per the official records maintained by the Wakf Board PW1 as Secretary of the Wakf is the Muthavalli and that the request of DW1 to remove PW1 was not so far heeded by the Board. The revision petitioners in CRP No. 338/2006 is entitled to a decree for injunction as sought for. 30. Adding to the above, the suit O.S.No.9/2004 is hit by Section 89 of the Wakf Act as the suit was instituted seeking relief against the Wakf Board also without causing notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act. For a correct appraisal of the case, a reading of Section 89 would be relevant. "89. Notice of suits by parties against Board:- No suit shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any act purporting to be done by it in pursuance of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at, the office of the Board, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left". A reading of the above provision would show that before instituting a suit against the Wakf Board, a notice as contemplated is a pre requisite and that the suit can be instituted only after the expiration of two months from the date of delivery of notice and the plaint shall contain such statement regarding service of notice. Here, admittedly there is no any such notice. Therefore, for that reason also, the suit O.S.No.9/2004 shall fail. 31. As against the suit O.S.No.10/2004 there is a defect for not sending notice in the suit to the Wakf Board. Section 90 of the Wakf Act mandates that in every suit or proceedings relating to a title to or possession of a Wakf property or the right of Muthavalli or beneficiary, the Court or Tribunal shall issue notice to the Wakf Board. Section 90 reads as follows: "90. Notice of suits, etc., by courts:-(1) In every suit or proceeding relating to a title to, or possession of a Wakf property or the right of a mutawalli or beneficiary, the Court or Tribunal shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. (2) Whenever any Wakf property is notified for sale in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for the recovery of any revenue, cess, rates of taxes due to the Government or any local authority, notice shall be given to the Board by the Court, Collector or other person under whose order the sale is notified. (3). In the absence of a notice under sub-section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the Court in this behalf. (4) In the absence of a notice under sub-section (2), the sale shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of the sale, applies in this behalf to the Court or other authority under whose order the sale was held." Admittedly no notice is issued to the Wakf Board in O.S.No.10/2004. But that statutory requirement is now substantially complied with since the Wakf Board, though on notice in O.S.No.9/2004 had participated in the trial and revision before this Court. But that statutory requirement is now substantially complied with since the Wakf Board, though on notice in O.S.No.9/2004 had participated in the trial and revision before this Court. Therefore, O.S.No.10/2004 cannot be defeated for want of notice under Section 90 of the Wakf Act. Adding to that, now the Board supports the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit O.S.No.10/2014 is no way hit by Section 90 and the relief sought cannot be declined for that reason. 32. Adding to the above, while decreeing O.S.No.9/2004 that DW1 is the Muthavalli, relief sought for making corrections in the Wakf Register was declined. Even the prayer to declare Ext.B2, which was issued with reference to the Wakf Register, void was declined by the trial court. No cross revision is preferred. In effect as per the court decree, DW1 is the Muthavalli. As per the Register of Wakf, despite the decree, PW1 is the Muthavalli. Because of the declining of the relief for corrections in the register, the entries in the Wakf Register would remain unchanged leaving scope for another round of litigation which cannot be allowed. Since the very case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9/2004 is that there is subsequent change of Muthavalli, the remedy open to DW1 is not a suit of this nature but to move the Board as per statutory provisions for which no attempt was made by DW1. Therefore, on that reason also we are inclined to interfere with the decree in O.S.No.9/2004. In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. Decrees impugned in both the revisions so far as it is against the revision petitioners would stand reversed. The suit O.S.No.9/2004 before the Tribunal would stand dismissed. While decreeing the suit O.S.No.10/2004 in full, in addition to the decree already granted, there will be a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant therein restraining him from interfering with the management and administration of the plaint schedule Wakf properties and other institutions by the plaintiffs. No order as to costs.