ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs by declaring that the property to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas of Sy.No.26/A as illegal and void and granting an order of permanent injunction against the defendants in interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land, the defendant No.3 has filed this writ petition. 2. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff Nos.1 to 8 are the only surviving legal heirs of their deceased father Tuljaprasad S/o Ramprasad Pande who was an exclusive owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing RS No.26A measuring 9 acres 10 guntas situated at Mahal Bhagayat Bijapur. He died intestate on 16.08.1971. The plaintiffs have inherited the suit land. Since then they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners. During the lifetime of their father, one gunta was acquired by the Government in the year 1934 for the purpose of building a compound wall around Mulla Masjid which was situated towards the east of the suit land. It was given a separate survey number as 26B. During his life time he converted certain portions of the land into residential plots and sold to various persons. That there is a Well in the suit land which was owned by the plaintiffs and it is fitted with electric pump-set and was used by them. Towards the western side of the land, there are some monuments consisting of tombs and arches etc. which are being treated as monuments and are preserved by the Archeological Survey of India since 1951. 4. The defendants 1 and 2 namely the Chairman, Karnataka Board of Wakfs and the Chairman Bijapur District Wakf Committee published a notification in the gazette dated 13.10.1988 including a part of the suit land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas as an additional Wakf property of Mulla Masjid. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No. 8979/1991 which was disposed off on 24.10.1994 granting an opportunity to the plaintiffs to urge their defence before the mutation proceedings. The Tahsildar did not resume the mutation proceedings. That during December, 1996 the defendants with the help of certain elements tried to disturb their possession. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No. 8979/1991 which was disposed off on 24.10.1994 granting an opportunity to the plaintiffs to urge their defence before the mutation proceedings. The Tahsildar did not resume the mutation proceedings. That during December, 1996 the defendants with the help of certain elements tried to disturb their possession. Hence the instant suit was filed seeking for a declaration that the additional property to an extent of 2 acres 35 gutnas as declared in the notification is null and void and for a permanent injunction against the defendants. 5. Initially the suit was filed before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Divsion), Bijapur in O.S. No. 163/1997. On constitution of the Wakf Tribunal, the same came to be transferred to the present Court and is renumbered as such. 6. On service of notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement. They have denied the plaint averments. That neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors are the absolute owners in possession of the suit land. That the area mentioned as taken over by the State Government is incorrect. That there is no sub division of RS No.26 as claimed by the plaintiffs. That only after following the due procedure in law, the impugned gazette notification has been issued. That the additional property as declared by the defendants is being used by the Muslim Community and Jamat. That the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No.3 has filed a separate written statement. The defendant No.3 claims to be the Mutavalli of the Mulla Masjid. He too denies the plaint averments. It is his case that its only 9 acres of land was in the possession of the plaintiffs as the remaining area formed the part of the Wakf Property. That the notification is in accordance with law. That the suit is barred by limitation. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiffs prove that notification under No.KTW/RBC/MSC/8/BJP/8889 dated 31/10/ 1988 is illegal? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of the suit property as on the date of suit? 3. Whether cause of action arose to file this suit? 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. What order or decree?” 9. Whether plaintiffs prove that notification under No.KTW/RBC/MSC/8/BJP/8889 dated 31/10/ 1988 is illegal? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of the suit property as on the date of suit? 3. Whether cause of action arose to file this suit? 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. What order or decree?” 9. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined the sixth plaintiff as PW1 and marked 20 documents. The defendant No.3 was examined as DW1 and another witness. 13 documents were marked by the defendants. Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were held in the affirmative and issue No.2 was held partly in affirmative. The suit was decreed. It was declared that the Certificate of Registration registering the property to an extent of 2 acre 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.26/A as additional property belonging to Mulla Masjid as illegal and void. The defendants were restrained from the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas. Aggrieved by the same, the third defendant has filed this petition. 10. Smt. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment and decree is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. That the findings recorded by the Tribunal on limitation is incorrect. That the notification was issued in the year 1988 and the suit was filed only in the year 1997. The same is barred by limitation in terms of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995. That the property always continued to remain as Wakf property. That the plea of the plaintiffs runs contrary to the records. She pleads that the petition be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. 11. On the other hand, Sri Veeranagouda, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 defends the impugned order. He contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. 12. Sri Umesh V. Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs defends the impugned order. 13. Heard learned counsels. The Tribunal while considering the plea of the parties was of the view that the notification issued by the Wakf Board is illegal. That the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit. 12. Sri Umesh V. Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs defends the impugned order. 13. Heard learned counsels. The Tribunal while considering the plea of the parties was of the view that the notification issued by the Wakf Board is illegal. That the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit. In so considering, the evidence of the parties as well as the various documents were considered. 14. So far as the limitation is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan vs. Radha Kishan and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 468 . Therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 39 has held that whenever a stranger who is a non Muslim is in possession of certain property, he is not required to file a suit within a period of one year as per subsection (1) of Section 6. Therefore, primarily relying on the said judgment, the Tribunal held that the suit is within limitation. There is no reason to take a different view so far as limitation is concerned. 15. On merits, the Tribunal was of the view that as on the date of filing of the suit, as could be seen from Ex.P1 the property has been divided and the land measuring 7 acres 36 guntas has been given Hissa No.1, namely Sy.No.26A1. In the mutation extract bearing No.5771 at Ex.D3 the extent of land in RS No.26/A has been shown only 2 acres 35 guntas. Under the said mutation RS 26/A measuring 2 acres 35 guntas has been entered as additional Wakf property of Mulla Masjid in pursuance to the gazette notification. Admittedly, since the time of the father of the plaintiffs they are engaged in converting the land for nonagricultural purposes and are forming sites. Mutation Entry No.8204 dated 28.11.1972 at Ex.P12 reveals that the land was inherited by the plaintiffs after the death of their father Tuljaramprasad and the property was given number as 26A/1. Mutation Entry No.10776 dated 28.02.1978 vide Ex.P14 reveals that out of land Sy.No.26/A/2B 1 acre 2 guntas has been converted for nonagricultural purpose. Mutation Entry No.10737 dated 11.01.1978 reveals that after conversion the plaintiffs have sold plot Nos.13 and 14 to one Mahadev Bhagavant Jadhav. Plaintiffs have sold several other residential plots to various persons. Mutation Entry No.10776 dated 28.02.1978 vide Ex.P14 reveals that out of land Sy.No.26/A/2B 1 acre 2 guntas has been converted for nonagricultural purpose. Mutation Entry No.10737 dated 11.01.1978 reveals that after conversion the plaintiffs have sold plot Nos.13 and 14 to one Mahadev Bhagavant Jadhav. Plaintiffs have sold several other residential plots to various persons. M.E. No.906 vide Ex.D24 reveals that 5 acres of land has been sold to one Sri V.G. Parikh & Company. M.E.No.905 vide Ex.D26 and M.E.No.907 vide Ex.D25 also discloses sale of different extent of land to Shri V.G. Parikh and Company by the plaintiffs in the year 2003. Certified copy of the sale deed in respect of 5 acres of land in RS No.26A/1 in favour of the partners of V.G. Parikh and Company is at Ex.D29. 16. So far as the declaration is concerned, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the said area does not belong to the Wakf and does not find a place in the list of Wakfs. Materials are produced by the plaintiffs to show that part of Sy.No.26 was taken over and maintained by Archeological Survey of India so far as the protected monuments therein are concerned. In order to declare any property as a property of the Wakf, substantial material would have been produced to justify the same. However, the defendants have not produced any documentary evidence or the copy of the registration etc. to show that the property is a Wakf property. It was for the defendants to establish that a proper survey has been conducted and thereafter the land has been earmarked as the property belonging to the Wakf. Admittedly, even in the evidence of the defendants, they have clearly stated that no such survey has been conducted. No enquiry has been held to ascertain as to whom the said 2 acres 37 guntas of land in RS No.26/A belongs to. There is no material in order to show that even a notice was issued to the plaintiffs to the said extent. Therefore, except filing the written statement, no document has been produced to substantiate their said contention. The documents produced therein are certain photographs of the graves, extract of the Hakku patra, certified copy of Mutation Entry No.905 etc. None of them would show that an enquiry was held or a survey was conducted. Therefore, except filing the written statement, no document has been produced to substantiate their said contention. The documents produced therein are certain photographs of the graves, extract of the Hakku patra, certified copy of Mutation Entry No.905 etc. None of them would show that an enquiry was held or a survey was conducted. Until and unless it is done, the same is opposed to the provisions of the Wakf Act. No enquiry was conducted in order to declare that any property belongs to Wakf. On failure to do so, the contention of the defendants cannot be accepted. 17. All these certified copies of sale deeds discloses that even subsequent to 1988 and subsequent to the filing of the suit, major portions of the land has been sold. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the plaintiffs cannot seek perpetual injunction in respect of the entire suit land but can only seek the relief of injunction to the extent of 2 acres 35 guntas. Therefore, injunction was granted only to that extent. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule discharged.