ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition and also the Writ Petition are filed calling in question the common judgment passed by Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belgaum Division, Belgaum in case No.KWT/BJR/(OS)/SR-13/2010 dated : 15.04.2013 in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that Ex.P-5 - Certificate of Registration bearing No.KBW/REG/5/BJR/2009-10 dated : 14.10.2009 issued by 1st respondent, as null and void. 2. The petitioners in CRP No.200006/2014 are the plaintiffs before the Wakf Tribunal. Some of the petitioners by name Rustum Suleman Mujjawar claimed himself to be the President of Badni Boudi Masjid cum Ashur Khana, Indi Road, Rajput Galli, Bijapur, who is the defendant no.3 before the Wakf Tribunal has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.102315/2013 challenging the said order. 3. For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience, the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Wakf Tribunal is retained. 4. It is just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of the case before the Wakf Tribunal to ascertain whether Wakf Tribunal is right in decreeing the suit and also nullifying the effect of the certificate as per Ex.P-5. 5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is Exit in land CTS No.1084 in Survey No.18, Rajaput Galli, Indi Road, Bijapur measuring 13-guntas out of 4-Acres 36-Guntas. The plaintiffs claimed that plaintiff no.1 is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the entire immovable property measuring 2-acres 11-guntas in the said Sy.No.18/1 of Mahalbagayath village, Tq. & Dist.Bijapur and claiming that the said property is their ancestral property having inherited the same from their forefathers. It is contended by the plaintiffs that on the basis of an application filed under Section 36 of Wakf Act, 1995 by the 3rd defendant, the Wakf Board (defendant no.1) has unilaterally issued a certificate of registration vide No.KBW/REG/5/BJR/2009-10 dated : 14.10.2009 declaring the said property as a public and Wakf property in the name of Badni Boudi Masjid cum Ashur Khana (3rd defendant ). 6. The plaintiffs in fact being aggrieved by the said certificate have called in question in the suit noted above for declaration that the said certificate of registration issued by the 1st defendant as null and void and for such other orders as Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The plaintiffs in fact being aggrieved by the said certificate have called in question in the suit noted above for declaration that the said certificate of registration issued by the 1st defendant as null and void and for such other orders as Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs have relied upon the suit filed by the defendant no.3 Badni Boudi Masjid cum Ashur Khana through some members by name Sulemansab, Pradipsing and others., against the plaintiffs herein in O.S.No.74/1995, wherein, after due contest, the trial Court i.e. II Addl. Civil Judge Bijapur dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on holding that the said property is not a public property. The plaintiffs claimed that, said certificate is null and void and the Board had no jurisdiction to issue such certificate when the Civil Court has already decided the issue with regard to the declaration that it is not a public property or a Wakf property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have called in question the said judgment of the Tribunal before this Court that the Tribunal had its jurisdiction to decide any issue with regard to the title of the property or the possession over the property as the matter is seized before the Civil Court. 7. In Writ Petition No.102315/2013, the petitioner also admitted and has contended that though the suit in O.S.NO.74/1995 has been dismissed, however, the aggrieved plaintiffs therein in the said suit have preferred an appeal in R.A.No.23/2006 which is re-numbered as R.A.No.95/2006 and the same was dismissed for non prosecution but a miscellaneous application bearing Misc.No.77/2012 is filed which is pending before the District Judge at Bijapur. Therefore, when the litigation is not fully completed between the parties and not reached the logical conclusion, in the meantime, issuance of the certificate declaring the said property as Wakf Property is proper and correct by the Wakf Board. Therefore, the Wakf Tribunal has committed serious legal error in nullifying the said notification without waiting for the conclusion of the civil dispute between the parties. Therefore, the writ petitioner has sought for a prayer that the said order passed by the Tribunal declaring the said notification as null and void is to be set aside holding that the said certificate holds good during the pendency of the dispute between the parties, subject to the final decision of the Civil Courts. 8. Therefore, the writ petitioner has sought for a prayer that the said order passed by the Tribunal declaring the said notification as null and void is to be set aside holding that the said certificate holds good during the pendency of the dispute between the parties, subject to the final decision of the Civil Courts. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit of the defendant no.3 in O.S.No.74/1995 has been dismissed by the Civil Court holding that it is not a public property, then till the Wakf Board or any other person (defendant no.3 herein) gets the decree set aside by the Appellate Court, till that point, the decree passed by the trial Court is binding on the parties. Therefore, on the basis of such decree, the issuance of the certificate is not valid and it shall not be continued till the Appellate Court or any other superior Court reverses the said finding of the trial Court in O.S.No.74/1995. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended before this Court that when the matter is pending before the Court, mere dismissal of the suit is not the logical conclusion of the case between the parties. Therefore, the Wakf Tribunal should not have nullified the effect of the said certificate by declaring it as null and void. Therefore, he contends that the said order of the tribunal has to be set aside to that effect. 10. Though the learned counsels have contended in the above said manner, ultimately the learned counsel for the writ petitioner – Sri. D.P. Ambekar submits before this Court that even the said certificate issued by the Wakf Tribunal is considered to be valid, its validity shall come to the end, suppose if the defendant no.3 (plaintiff in O.S.No.74/1995) succeeds in the appeal or in any of the subsequent proceedings before the Civil Courts. In such an eventuality, the Wakf Tribunal has to issue fresh certificate in super session of the earlier notification issued as per Ex.P-5 which has been nullified by the Wakf Tribunal. 11. In view of the above said submissions, on careful perusal of the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal, the Wakf Tribunal has framed the following issues for its consideration. ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner in possession of suit property ? 2. 11. In view of the above said submissions, on careful perusal of the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal, the Wakf Tribunal has framed the following issues for its consideration. ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner in possession of suit property ? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the certificate of registration dated : 14th October, 2009 issued by first defendant is null and void ? 3. Whether first defendant proves that suit property has become Wakf by user ? 4. Is the Court fee paid inadequate ? 5. Is there no cause of action for the suit ? 6. To what relief the parties are entitled ? 12. The Wakf Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has answered Issue Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in the negative and issue no.2 in the affirmative and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. So far as declaring certificate issued by the Wakf Board as null and void is concerned as per Ex.P-5 there is no dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, while answering issues, it gave negative finding so far as issue no.1 is concerned. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners Sri. Ameetkumar Deshpande, strenuously submits before this Court that, the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to declare the title of the plaintiffs or otherwise giving any negative finding with regard to the title of the plaintiffs therein and had no jurisdiction to give any finding on Issue Nos.1 and 3 as they does not survive for consideration in view of the parties have already approached the Civil Court in the year 1995 itself in O.S.No.74/1995. Even looking to the prayers sought for in the plaint before the Wakf Tribunal, there is no declaration of title sought for by the plaintiffs nor any Court fee is paid. Further the plaintiffs though stated about the source of their title in support of their prayer it is only with reference to Ex.P-5 the certificate issued by the Wakf Board. 13. So far as the 3rd issue is concerned, the suit appeal is pending. Further the plaintiffs though stated about the source of their title in support of their prayer it is only with reference to Ex.P-5 the certificate issued by the Wakf Board. 13. So far as the 3rd issue is concerned, the suit appeal is pending. Whether it is a public property or it is a private property of the defendant nos.1 and 2, the said subject matter and lis between the parties is still to be adjudicated by the Civil Court in view of the pendency of the miscellaneous proceedings in Misc.No.77/2012 pending on the file of District Judge, Bijapur. 14. Under the above said facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal on the above said Issue Nos.1 and 3 are not tenable. Further added to that the Certificate issued by the Wakf Board on 14.10.2009 is null and void because the Wakf Tribunal could have not have issued the said certificate when the Civil Court has declared in O.S.No.74/1995 that the said property is not a public property or the Wakf Property. Therefore, to that extent, the judgment of the trial Court is valid and it is not upheld. 15. However, it should be clarified that if for any reason, the writ petitioner in WP No.102315/2013 who is defendant no.3 before the tribunal, if they succeed in the regular appeal, which is filed against the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.NO.74/1995, they can make an application to the Wakf Board once again for issuance of the fresh certificate declaring the said property as Wakf Property or public property if the Civil Court holds that the said property as a Wakf property or a Public property. With these observations, in my opinion, the order of the Wakf Tribunal has to be set aside in part. Hence, I proceed to pass the following :- ORDER The CRP No.200006/2014 and WP No.102315/2013 are hereby allowed in part. The findings recorded by the Wakf Tribunal on Issue Nos.1 and 3 in No.KWT/BJR/(OS)/SR- 13/2010 dated : 15.04.2013 are hereby set aside. The Order of the Wakf Tribunal sofar as it relates to declaring Ex.P-5 – Certificate of Registration bearing No.KBW/REG/5/BJR/2009-10 dated : 14.10.2009 as null and void is confirmed herewith with a liberty to the defendant no.3 (writ petitioners) to approach the Wakf Board afresh for issuance of fresh certificate if they succeed in the civil proceedings pending between the parties.