Judgment :- The instant Civil Revision Petitions have been projected against the common judgment and decree dated 28.12.2004 passed by the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli, in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 and O.S. No. 275 of 2000 respectively. 2. Since these two Civil Revision Petitions involve common questions of law and facts and since the suits were also disposed of by a common judgment, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the issue by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court in O.S. No. 137 of 1999. 4. The brief facts essential for the proper appreciation of the case are as follows: According to the plaintiffs, who claim to be the worshippers of the Tenkasi Vangaru Muthu Meeran Sahib Thaikka Pallivasal, the property described in 1st schedule of the suit was sold by one Peer Mohammed Rowther in favour of minor Mohammed Ismail under a registered sale deed dated 15.3.1917 and the said Mohammed Ismail and his family members endowed the said property with the plaintiffs' Mosque in 1946 and as such, it is a Wakf property. It is stated that the said Mohammed Ismail, who is alleged to have dedicated the property to the Mosque, also directed that a Madarasa should be built and moulath should be recited and his heirs should not deviate the property. According to the plaintiffs, the said details of dedication are found in the deed of partition dated 17.8.1946 marked as Ex.A2, entered in the family of Mohammed Ismail. It is further stated that as the 1st schedule property was dedicated to Wakf, Mohammed Ismail was allotted some other property in the partition in lieu of the same and the property so allotted to him, was sold to one Kather Beevi by way of sale deed 14.7.1963. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the said Mohammed Ismail had no right to deal with the 1st schedule property. However, the said Mohammed Ismail gifted the suit 2nd schedule property, which is part of 1st schedule of the suit property, in favour of his daughter, viz., the first defendant, as per Gift Deed dated 07.5.1984, which is marked as Ex. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the said Mohammed Ismail had no right to deal with the 1st schedule property. However, the said Mohammed Ismail gifted the suit 2nd schedule property, which is part of 1st schedule of the suit property, in favour of his daughter, viz., the first defendant, as per Gift Deed dated 07.5.1984, which is marked as Ex. A.4 and settled the suit 3rd schedule property, which is also another portion in suit 1st schedule, in favour of his second daughter, who is the second defendant, under Ex.A5 dated 07.5.1984. According to the plaintiffs, the said settlement deeds are void. 5. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that as per the said settlement deeds, a piece of property measuring an extent of 17 X 8 C.C. was retained by Mohammed Ismail and that the second defendant also sold item No.1 of the 3rd schedule to the third defendant herein on 27.4.1985. Further, the 2nd item of 3rd schedule was sold to the 4th defendant and that the defendants 3 and 4, who purchased the suit properties inspite of objections from the plaintiffs, have put up a house and shops in the same property purchased by them. The said Mohammed Ismail died in the year 1994. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 137 of 1999 for declaration of 1st schedule property as Wakf property and for recovery of possession of the same after removing the superstructure. According to the plaintiffs, as worshippers of the Wakf Pallivasal, they have the right to maintain the suit and that the suit is also filed within time. 6. The defendants contested the suit denying all the allegations made in the plaint. It was claimed that the plaintiffs are not worshippers of the Mosque. According to the defendants, the suit was not maintainable as the same is filed in the representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 CPC without leave of Court. It is contended that no sanction was obtained under Section 92 CPC. The suit was also said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Wakf Board is not made as a party to suit. The defendants, while admitting that the 1st schedule property belonged to Mohammed Ismail under sale deed dated 15.03.1917, denied the dedication of same to the plaintiff Mosque as stated in the partition deed dated 17.08.1946. The suit was also said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Wakf Board is not made as a party to suit. The defendants, while admitting that the 1st schedule property belonged to Mohammed Ismail under sale deed dated 15.03.1917, denied the dedication of same to the plaintiff Mosque as stated in the partition deed dated 17.08.1946. It is stated that Mohammed Ismail buried the body of Muthumeeran in an extent of 4 X 22 C.C. on the east of 1st schedule and dedicated the same to the Mosque to recite “Varushanthi” and “Maulath”. It is also stated that a piece of property on the east measuring 4 C.C. was given to Sheik Ismail and Mohammed Ismail was in enjoyment of 17 X 32 C.C. on the western side in which no one has any right. Mohammed Ismail gifted the suit 2nd schedule to the first defendant under gift deed dated 07.05.1984 which was accepted by the first defendant, who was in possession of the same. The further case of the defendants is that the second defendant sold item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit 3rd schedule to the defendants 3 and 4 respectively on 27.04.1985 and delivered possession of the same in which the defendants 3 and 4 have constructed house and shops above 10 years ago and are in enjoyment. According to the defendants, the first defendant is in possession of 2nd schedule and Mohammed Ismail enjoyed the property for more than 75 years and thereby prescribed title by adverse possession. 7. O.S. No. 275 of 2000 was filed by one Ameena Bivi and defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 with the same allegations raised in the written statement in O.S. No. 137 of 1999, seeking for declaration of plaint 3rd Schedule property as belonging to plaintiffs and mandatory injunction regarding the plaint 4th Schedule property which is a part of 3rd Schedule property. Likewise, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 filed written statement as defendants in O.S. No. 275 of 2000 with the same allegations raised in their plaint in O.S. No. 137 of 1999. Hence, to avoid repetition, the facts in O.S. No. 275 of 2000 are not narrated. 8. As the issue involved in both the suits is one and the same, the Wakf Tribunal tried both suits jointly. Hence, to avoid repetition, the facts in O.S. No. 275 of 2000 are not narrated. 8. As the issue involved in both the suits is one and the same, the Wakf Tribunal tried both suits jointly. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the plaintiffs, one Mohammed Sulaiman and one Madarasa were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and Exs. A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, two persons were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 besides marking Exs. B.1 to B.8. 9. The Wakf Tribunal / learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, on consideration of the evidence and the materials available therein, by common judgment dated 28.12.2004, decreed the suit in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 while dismissing the other suit in O.S. No. 275 of 2000. Aggrieved by the said common judgment, the defendants in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 275 of 2000 preferred the present Civil Revision Petition Nos. 415 of 2005 and 416 of 2005 respectively before this Court. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 11. The points that arise for consideration in these revision petitions are: 1. Whether Mohammed Ismail dedicated the property described in 1st schedule in both suits in favour of Tenkasi Vangaru Muthu Meeran Sahib Thailka Pallivasal? 2. Who are in possession of 1st schedule property in both suits? 3. Is the suit O.S. No. 137 of 1999 maintainable? 4. Is the suit O.S. No. 137 of 1999 barred by limitation? 5. To what relief the parties are entitled? 12. Before I address myself to the questions argued before this Court, I may briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. 13. The Wakf Act, 1995 was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the better administration and supervision of the Wakfs and it came into effect in Tamil Nadu on 01.01.1996. 14. 12. Before I address myself to the questions argued before this Court, I may briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. 13. The Wakf Act, 1995 was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the better administration and supervision of the Wakfs and it came into effect in Tamil Nadu on 01.01.1996. 14. Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, which defines the term “Wakf” as follows:- “Wakf” means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes-- (i) a wakf by user but such wakf shall not cease to be a wakf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser; (ii) “grants”, including mashrut-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable; and (iii) a wakf-alal-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, and “wakf” means any person making such dedication.” 15. From the materials available on record, it is seen that Mohammed Ismail settled a part of 1st schedule property to the 1st defendant and another portion of 1st schedule property to the second defendant, viz., his two daughters. Subsequently, first and second item of the 3rd schedule property were sold by the second defendant to the defendants 3 and 4 respectively. While so, the plaintiffs had not questioned the settlement deeds executed by Mohammed Ismail as well as the sale deeds executed by the defendants 2 to 4. Admittedly, the third defendant has constructed a house and a shop in the suit property purchased. Thus, even as per the admission of P.W.1 Mohammed Sulaiman, the Mosque had not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that Mohammed Ismail gifted 1st schedule to his daughters, viz., defendants 1 and 2. D.W.1 also had admitted the sale in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and the construction of house and the shop by the purchasers. Point Nos. 1 and 2: 16. D.W.1 also had admitted the sale in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and the construction of house and the shop by the purchasers. Point Nos. 1 and 2: 16. The plaintiffs claim that the suit 1st schedule property is a Wakf property as it was alleged to have been dedicated by one Mohammed Ismail and his family members to the plaintiffs Mosque in the year 1946 and that some other properties were allotted to the said Mohammed Ismail in lieu of the same. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that Mohammed Ismail was in possession of the suit 1st schedule property and that he had also executed two settlement deeds under Ex. A.4 and Ex. A.5 dated 07.05.1984 in favour of his daughters, who are defendants 1 and 2. 18. In support of this contention, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs relied on the following passage in Ex. A.2 partition deed dated 17.8.1946:- “Tamil” 19. The above recitals in Ex. A.2 partition deed do not explicitly describe about the dedication of the properties to the Mosque. Though the plaintiffs claim that the 1st schedule property was dedicated to the Mosque in the year 1946, they have not produced any instrument or deed or Wakf to prove the alleged dedication. As such, one cannot come to the conclusion that the 1st Schedule property measuring about 21 X 30 C.C. was dedicated to the plaintiff Mosque. More over, the allotment of property measuring 6 X 23 C.C. is alleged to have been allotted to Mohammed Ismail to compensate the property given to the Mosque. When Mohammed Ismail is said to have been allotted property in the partition deed Ex.A.2 dated 17.8.1946, the difference in the extent does not probablise the dedication of 1st schedule property to Mosque. Further the recitals in the partition deed Ex. A.2 do not prove that the 1st schedule property is a Wakf property. 20. When Mohammed Ismail is said to have been allotted property in the partition deed Ex.A.2 dated 17.8.1946, the difference in the extent does not probablise the dedication of 1st schedule property to Mosque. Further the recitals in the partition deed Ex. A.2 do not prove that the 1st schedule property is a Wakf property. 20. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the defendants / revision petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad vs. Mohammed Beke [1997 – 2 – L.W. 120] and more particularly, referred to paragraph 6 of the judgment wherein it has been observed as under:- “It would thus be clear from the authorities cited above that the founder must declare his intention to dedicate the property for the mosque. A specific declaration is necessary. The founder must divest himself completely from the ownership of the property. The divestment can be inferred form the fact that he delivered possession to the Mutawali or an Imam of the mosque. If there is no actual delivery of the possession, the mere fact that members of the Mohammedan public are permitted to offer prayers with azan and ikamat does not make the wakf complete and irrevocable. The founder must also make some sort of way which may be used by the public to enter the mosque. From the facts it is seen that the property was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the father during his life time enjoying the usufruct thereof. There was no dedication and public was not allowed to have any prayers on the property as mosque: nor the public had access to it. During the life time of the father himself, the appellant had cancelled the deed. Under these circumstances, the necessary tests laid sown by this Court have not been satisfied to conclude that a wakf has been created in respect of the above properties. The view of the Courts below is not correct in law.” 21. As per the above decision, a specific declaration is necessary and the founder must divest himself completely from the ownership of the property. In the absence of delivery of possession, the mere fact that members of the Mohammedan public offered prayers, does not make it complete and irrevocable. 22. As per the above decision, a specific declaration is necessary and the founder must divest himself completely from the ownership of the property. In the absence of delivery of possession, the mere fact that members of the Mohammedan public offered prayers, does not make it complete and irrevocable. 22. In this context, it would also be relevant to refer to the decision of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jamal Uddin vs. Mosque At Mashakganj [ AIR 1973 All 328 ] wherein, the Bench relying upon the decision of Privy Council in Abadi Begum v. Bibi Kama Zainab, [99 Ind Cas 669 = ( AIR 1927 PC 2 )] held as follows:- “... where there is no document executed by the wakif at the time of making of the alleged wakf it is necessary that cogent evidence should be produced that he had delivered possession to the Mutawalli. An obvious method of doing so is to get the property in dispute recorded in the name of the wakf in the records maintained by the municipal board....” 23. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the land in dispute, was not recorded in the name of Mosque in the records, by the Municipal Board. Further, there is no evidence to show that the said Mohammed Ismail dedicated suit 1st schedule property to the plaintiffs' Mosque. Even Ex. A.2 partition deed dated 17.08.1946 is silent with regard to the description of the property. Therefore, the dedication intended by the said Mohammed Ismail cannot be presumed. Further, the Act of Mohammed Ismail in executing the settlement deeds Ex. A.4 and Ex. A.5 dated 07.5.1984 in favour of his daughters. would show that he did not divest the property to the plaintiffs' Mosque. As such, we cannot infer that the said Mohammed Ismail divested his right and title with the plaintiff’s Mosque. 24. At this juncture, for better understanding of the case, Sections 5 and 37 of the Wakf Act are extracted hereunder:- "5. Publication of list of wakfs:-- (1) On receipt of a report under Sub-section (3) of Section 4, the State Government shall forward a copy of the same to the Board. (2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under Sub-section (1) and publish in the Official Gazette, a list of wakfs, existing in the State containing such particulars as may be prescribed." “37. (2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under Sub-section (1) and publish in the Official Gazette, a list of wakfs, existing in the State containing such particulars as may be prescribed." “37. Register of Wakfs.- The Board shall maintain a register of Wakfs which shall contain in respect of each Wakf copies of the Wakf deeds, when available and the following particulars, namely:- (a) the class of the Wakf; (b) the name of the mutawallis; (c) the rule of succession to the office of mutawalli under the Wakf deed or by custom or by usage; (d) particulars of all Wakf properties and all title deeds and documents relating thereto; (e) particulars of the scheme of administration and the scheme of expenditure at the time of registration; (f) such other particulars as may be provided by regulations. 25. It would not be out of place for this Court to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Wakf Board vs. Hathija Ammal (Dead) by Lrs. Etc. [2001 (1) CTC 561] wherein Their Lordships have decided the right of the Wakf Board to institute a suit. In this regard, paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said judgment are usefully re-produced hereunder:- Para 6 : “In the event, any property has been omitted by inadvertence or otherwise, then it is for Wakf Board to take action as provided under Section 27 of the Act. If the Wakf Board has reason to believe that a particular property is a wakf property then it can itself collect information and if any question arises whether a particular property is a wakf property or not it may, after making such enquiry as it may deem fit decide the question and such decision of the Wakf Board shall be final unless revoked or modified by a Civil Court. Such action has not been taken by the Wakf Board in this case. Para 7 : The High Court is justified in holding that the Wakf Board had no right to institute suit for declaration that any property is a wakf property as the scheme of the Act clearly indicates. Such action has not been taken by the Wakf Board in this case. Para 7 : The High Court is justified in holding that the Wakf Board had no right to institute suit for declaration that any property is a wakf property as the scheme of the Act clearly indicates. The High Court further found that as far as the appellant is concerned with regard to title of any property, it must comply with the requirements of Sections 4,5 and 6 or 27 of the Act, which means that if any property is not published as wakf property as required under Section 5(2) of the Act or the Board has not invoked the special power under Section 27, the Wakf Board cannot file a suit for declaration and possession and on that basis upheld the order made by the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Para 8 : Ms. Shobha, learned counsel for the appellant, drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Sayyed Ali and Ors. v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad and Ors. [1998] 2 SCC 642; to contend that wakf property can never lose its character as wakf property once it is shown that it is a permanent dedication of property and once a wakf, it will always be a wakf. The point urged in this Case is that the suit property is a wakf property and hence sought for possession. What was pointed out by the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court concurrently is that before filing the suit as provided in law, the Wakf Board should have followed the procedure as required under Section 4,5 and 6 or 27 of the Act. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Trial Court, and affirmed in appeal, is that the suit properties are not included in the notification published under Section 5(2) of the Act and therefore, steps should have been taken as provided under Section 27 of the Act. It is only thereafter a suit for possession could have been filed by the appellant. There is no answer to this finding.” 26. It is only thereafter a suit for possession could have been filed by the appellant. There is no answer to this finding.” 26. In the above ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Wakf Board has got no right to institute a suit for declaration that any property is a Wakf property unless the requirements under Sections 4, 5, 6 & 27 of the Act are complied with. 27. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs had not produced the publication of list of Wakf property as contemplated under Section 5 of the Wakf Act nor the Register of Wakfs, which contains particulars of all Wakf properties, all title deeds and documents relating thereto, as provided under Section 37 of the Wakf Act. The absence of publication of the list of properties under Section 5 and the absence of register under Section 37 of Wakf Act would belie the contention of the plaintiffs that Mohammed Ismail intended to dedicate the 1st schedule property to the plaintiffs' Mosque and divested the title in the said property and deliver the same to the plaintiff’s Mosque. 28. In the above factual matrix, the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that Mohammed Ismail dedicated suit 1st schedule property to the plaintiffs' Mosque and that the plaintiffs' Mosque has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs had miserably failed to prove that Mohammed Ismail intended to dedicate suit 1st schedule property to the Mosque. In the absence of any proof that there was a dedication of the suit 1st schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs, the claim of the plaintiffs that 1st schedule of the suit property is a “Wakf” property, cannot be granted. 29. When the Wakf Board itself cannot file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession on a claim that the property is a Wakf property, in view of the judgments cited supra, it is clear that the plaintiffs, who claim to be the worshippers, cannot maintain the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. However, even if evidence of dedication is not available, the property will be deemed to be a Wakf if it had been used as a Wakf property for quite a long time. 30. In the case on hand, there is no evidence to show that the suit 1st schedule has become Wakf by user. However, even if evidence of dedication is not available, the property will be deemed to be a Wakf if it had been used as a Wakf property for quite a long time. 30. In the case on hand, there is no evidence to show that the suit 1st schedule has become Wakf by user. Therefore, the Wakf Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that the property is a Wakf property. As the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit 1st schedule property has become a Wakf property in view of the alleged dedication of the same by Mohammed Ismail, has not been proved, the defendants get the title under settlement deeds Exs. A.4 and A.5 dated 07.5.1984 and the sale deed Ex. A.6 dated 27.4.1985. The defendants are also admittedly in possession of the properties. Hence, the Question of title finds favour with the defendants and point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiffs. Point No. 3:- 31. As regards the jurisdiction, a perusal of the records would show that O.S. No. 137 of 1999 was originally filed before the Court of District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, and numbered as O.S. No. 768 of 1995. Subsequently, the same was transferred to Wakf Tribunal (Sub-Court) Tenkasi, as O.S. No. 137 of 1999. Therefore, the suit has been filed before the Wakf Act 1995 came into force. As observed already, the Wakf Act 1995 came into force with effect from 01.01.1996. 32. While the suit was originally filed in O.S. No. 768 of 1995, which was prior to the coming into force of the Wakf Act and when the dispute as to the nature of the 1st schedule property as Wakf property arose even before the coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995, it is not known as to how the suits were transferred to Wakf Tribunal and how the Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli, assumed jurisdiction over the suits. So also, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 773 of 1995 which was also filed before the coming into force of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that on the dates when the suits were filed, the Wakf Act was not in force. Hence, the Court of District Munsif, Tenkasi, had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. So also, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 773 of 1995 which was also filed before the coming into force of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that on the dates when the suits were filed, the Wakf Act was not in force. Hence, the Court of District Munsif, Tenkasi, had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. In such view of the matter, the Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli, can have no jurisdiction to entertain both the suits as they were filed before coming into force of the Act. Nevertheless, none of the parties had objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. On the other hand, they have appeared before the Tribunal submitted their contentions. Therefore, it is too late for the parties to contend that the Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli, has no jurisdiction to try the suits and the said contention cannot be sustained. Point No. 3 is answered accordingly. Point No. 4:- 33. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the defendants / revision petitioners is that the suit in O.S. No 137 of 1999 is barred by limitation as the suit has not been filed within 12 years from the date of alienation of the suit property by Mohammed Ismail. In this regard, it can be seen that the settlement by Mohammed Ismail in favour of his daughters, viz., defendants 1 and 2, was in the year 1984 and the suit has been filed after 14 years. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and the suit property is to be held as the property of Mohammed Ismail and not a Wakf property. As a result, suit O.S. No. 137 of 1999 is barred by limitation. Point No:- 5 34. As it has been found above, the dedication of the suit 1st schedule property by Mohammed Ismail to the Mosque, has not been proved either by partition deed Ex. A.2 or otherwise, the 1st schedule is not a Wakf property. As such, it is clear that the plaintiffs have no title to the same and consequently, have no right to recover possession of the suit property. In view of the same, O.S. No. 137 of 1999 is liable to be dismissed. 35. The defendants in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 claim title to the suit properties on the basis of settlement deeds Exs. A.4 and A.5. In view of the same, O.S. No. 137 of 1999 is liable to be dismissed. 35. The defendants in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 claim title to the suit properties on the basis of settlement deeds Exs. A.4 and A.5. The defendants 3 and 4 claim title to the part of suit 1st schedule property under sale deed Ex. A.6. The defendants 1 and 2, daughters of Mohammed Ismail, are entitled to sell the same to the defendants 3 and 4 as they are his legal heirs. More over, the plaintiffs had also not disputed the genuineness of the gift deeds Exs. A.4 and A.5 dated 07.5.1984 and the sale deed under Ex.A.6. On the other hand, it is their specific contention that the above said documents are void as the suit 1st schedule property was dedicated to a Wakf. As the defendants have been found to have title in the suit 1st schedule property, they are entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction. In that view of the matter, the suit in O.S. No. 275 of 2000 is liable to be decreed. 36. This Court is conscious of the fact that sitting in revision, this Court cannot re-appraise the evidence and take the role of an appellate Court. When there is no evidence to support the decision of the trial Court or when the appreciation of evidence is perverse or illegal, this Court is entitled to reverse the decision of the Trial Court. 37. On a careful consideration of the respective stand taken by the parties and on an overall assessment of the entire facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner, this court is of the considered view that the finding of the Wakf Tribunal suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality and the same needs to be set aside by this Court. Therefore, this Court, sitting in revision, allows these Civil Revision Petitions to prevent an aberration of justice. In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the common judgment and decree dated 28.12.2004 passed in O.S. No. 137 of 1999 and O.S. No. 275 of 2000. As a result, O.S. No. 137 of 1999 is dismissed and O.S. No. 275 of 2000 is decreed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.