ORDER : The plaintiff in this civil revision petition has impugned the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.02.2006, passed in O.S.No.121 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration, possession, damages and mesne profits. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property was a minor inam land granted to the plaintiff - Mosque and after the inam abolition, Patta had been granted to the plaintiff - Mosque by the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti and thus, the plaintiff - Mosque is entitled to the suit property and the first defendant, without any entitlement to the suit property, trespassed into the same during 1993 and put up a house thereon and therefore, the plaintiff - Mosque issued a notice, on 22.10.1996, calling upon the first defendant to vacate and hand over the possession. The first defendant though received the notice, did not care to send any reply nor comply with the request made in the notice and hence, the suit. 4. The case of the first defendant as projected in the written statement as well as the reply statement is that the suit laid by the plaintiff - Mosque is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is false to state that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff - Mosque and Akbar Ali is not the Muthavalli of the plaintiff - Mosque. The suit property and the surrounding area were in the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant's father and he was enjoying the same by putting up houses thereon and the first defendant, his brothers and his father were residing in the suit property for generations together and it is false to state that the first defendant had encroached into the suit property only in the year 1993 and the first defendant has also perfected his title to the suit property by his long and continuous enjoyment from the days of his father and fore-fathers. The plaintiff - Mosque is not entitled to claim damages or mesne profits from the first defendant as put forth in the plaint and it is also false to state that Patta had been granted to the plaintiff - Mosque under the Inam Abolition Act by the Settlement Tahsildar and in the appeal proceedings No.1 of 1987 initiated before the Tribunal, the title of the first defendant's father and others have been admitted and therefore, the suit is barred by res judicata and also barred by limitation and hence, the plaintiff - Mosque is not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs sought for and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The second defendant has pleaded that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff - Mosque and the plaintiff - Mosque is a wakf surveyed by the Wakf Board and has been registered under the Wakf Act. The Wakf Board has appointed Janab Akbar Ali as the Muthavalli by its proceedings, dated 14.03.2001. The first defendant has no manner of right or title over the property and he is liable to surrender the possession of the property to the present Muthavalli and hence, prayed for decreeing of the suit. 6. On the pleadings set out by the respective parties, the Court below had framed the following issues for determination: i. Whether Patta had been granted in favour of the plaintiff - Mosque in respect of the suit property under the Inam Abolition Act? ii. Whether the plaintiff - Mosque is entitled to obtain the reliefs of declaration and possession as prayed for? iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the claim of damages as sought for? iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the mesne profits as prayed for? v. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? vi. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? and vii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 7. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D9 were marked and in addition to that Exs.C1 to C6 were also marked. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Court below was pleased to dismiss the suit. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Court below was pleased to dismiss the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 9. The following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: i. Whether the suit property belonged to the revision petitioner - Mosque? ii. Whether the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant in his own right as claimed in the written statement? iii. Whether the revision petitioner - Mosque is entitled to obtain the reliefs sought for? and iv. To what relief the revision petitioner - Mosque is entitled to? POINT NOS.I TO III: 10. The revision petitioner - Mosque, represented by its Muthavalli, has laid the suit seeking for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction and also for recovery of possession. As far as the entitlement of the Muthavalli to represent the revision petitioner's Mosque, it is found that the revision petitioner's Mosque has produced the Appointment Order of Akbar Ali as Muthavalli marked as Ex.P4. Therefore, it is found and also as rightly determined by the Lower Court, the said Akbar Ali has been nominated as the Muthavalli and instituted the suit on behalf of the revision petitioner - Mosque. 11. The revision petitioner - Mosque claims title on the footing that the Patta for the suit property has been granted in favour of the revision petitioner - Mosque by the the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovipatti, vide proceedings dated 26.06.1970, under Section 11(2) of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30/63. The said order has been marked as A1. The said order has been marked as A1. A perusal of the same would go to show that seeking Patta before the concerned Authority in respect of various T.S.Numbers in Kandiaperi Village, Tirunelveli Taluk, including the suit property, it is found that the revision petitioner's Mosque represented by its Trustee and another had preferred the claim and it is found that after considering the materials placed, the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, has held that the revision petitioner's Mosque represented by the claimants as Trustees is entitled to Ryotwari Patta in respect of the properties inclusive of the suit property except T.S.Nos.1980 and 2000, under Section 8(1) of the Act and also held that the revision petitioner's Mosque jointly with one Mohammed Sheriff/first claimant is entitled to Patta for T.S.Nos.1980 and 2000, under Section 13 of the Act and therefore, it is found that by virtue of the proceedings marked as Ex.P1, it is seen that the revision petitioner's Mosque has been granted Patta by the competent Authority in respect of the suit property and other properties. 12. However, the Lower Court is found to have been misled or the Lower Court has not properly appreciated the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, marked as Ex.P1 and erred in holding that the revision petitioner's Mosque has been granted Patta only in respect of T.S.Nos.1980 and 2000 and not in respect of other lands involved in the proceedings, particularly the suit property. On the other hand, as seen above, the patta for the suit property and other properties had been granted only in favour of the revision petitioner's Mosque. 13. Further, to buttress the claim of the revision petitioner - Mosque, it is found that the revision petitioner - Mosque has also filed the proforma report, whereunder the suit property had been stated to be belonging to the plaintiff - Mosque marked as Ex.P5 and also produced the communications received from the Assistant Commissioner, Town Survey, intimating about the survey to be done in respect of the suit property marked as Exs.P6 to P9 and also produced the Town Settlement Survey showing the ownership of the suit property being vested with the plaintiff - Mosque as Ex.P10 and also the annual rental accounts in respect of the suit property marked as Ex.P12. On a cumulative reading of the above said documents, it is found that the revision petitioner - Mosque has clearly established that the suit property absolutely belonged to it. In such view of the matter, it is found that the Lower Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the revision petitioner, which would clinchingly establish that it is only the revision petitioner - Mosque, who has title to the suit property. 14. Further, it is found that the Lower Court has misconstrued that the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, in his proceedings marked as Ex.P1 has been challenged before the Tribunal. In this connection, the Lower Court has placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal, dated 29.11.1991 in appeal proceedings No.1 of 1987 marked as Ex.B4. However, a perusal of the same would go to show that the above said appeal has been preferred impugning the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, dated 20.09.1967. Whereas, it is found that Ex.P1 Proceedings have been passed by the Settlement Tahsildar by order, dated 26.06.1970. It is, therefore, found that the Lower Court has wrongly hold that Ex.D1 appeal is preferred against the order passed under the proceedings marked as Ex.P1. Further, it is found from Ex.D1 that in the above said appeal also it has been held that the same had been wrongly preferred as against the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, dated 20.09.1967. It has been held therein that as regards the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, dated 20.09.1967, an appeal had been already preferred by one Mohammed Sheriff and by way of the order passed in the said appeal, the matter had been remitted back to the file of the Settlement Tahsildar for further proceedings and accordingly, it is found that the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, had passed the subsequent order, dated 26.06.1970, which had been marked as Ex.P1, whereas Ex.B4 Appeal is found to have been preferred as against the order, dated 20.09.1967, which has already come to be set aside by another appeal preferred by the said Mohammed Sheriff and on that ground also, it is found that the appeal proceedings marked as Ex.B4 have come to be dismissed. In such view of the matter, the endorsement said to have been made during the course of the above said appeal proceedings would not in any manner be useful to determine the right and ownership of the suit property in particular and therefore, the Court below has been carried away by the endorsement made during the course of the appeal proceedings as if, the revision petitioner's Mosque has given up its right in respect of the suit property. On the other hand, it is found that after the matter had been remitted back, the Settlement Tahsildar, by way of the proceedings marked as Ex.P1, has held that it is only the revision petitioner's Mosque, who is the owner of the suit property and it is also found that as referred to above, the revision petitioner's Mosque having title of the suit property is found to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the same could be evidenced from the Town Settlement Survey and Annual Rental Accounts and also the proforma report marked on the side of the revision petitioner's Mosque. 15. Contrary to the claim of title to the suit property by the revision petitioner - Mosque, the first defendant has put forth a plea that he had been residing in the suit property from the days of his father and fore- fathers by putting up a house thereon and paying taxes, electricity charges etc., and also perfected his title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiff - Mosque, without establishing title to the suit property, cannot dislodge his possession. However, as already adverted to, the plaintiff - Muthavalli has clearly established its title to the suit property. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner - Mosque, the first defendant has not established as to under what right he had put up the superstructure in the suit property and claimed title to the same. The documents produced on the side of the first defendant, namely, tax receipts and electricity receipts by itself would not confer any title to the suit property on him and those documents cannot be construed as documents of title for upholding his title to the suit property. The documents produced on the side of the first defendant, namely, tax receipts and electricity receipts by itself would not confer any title to the suit property on him and those documents cannot be construed as documents of title for upholding his title to the suit property. Further, there is no acceptable and reliable document to evidence that the first defendant has prescribed his title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. The first defendant has not established that he had been enjoying the suit property adverse to the interest of the true owner openly and continuously exhibiting the hostile attitude to the knowledge of the real owner and thereby perfected his title adversely. With reference to the above facts, there is no convincing material produced on the side of the first defendant. The other documents marked as the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.244 of 1998, which is a suit laid by his brother would not in any manner advance his case. As rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner - Mosque, the case of the brother preferred in O.S.No.244 of 1998 has come to be rejected by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.58 of 2006 by order, dated 20.07.2017. The copy of the property tax demand register marked as Ex.D9 by itself would not in any manner be useful to sustain the case of the first defendant. Therefore, it is found that the first defendant has not clearly pleaded and also not established as to how he claims legal title to the suit property and thus, it is found that the first defendant is none but an encroacher into the suit property and therefore, he is liable to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as prayed for. 16. The plaintiff - Mosque has also claimed damages for use and occupation in a sum of Rs.1,750/- from the first defendant for the period from 01.04.1999 to 28.02.2002 at the rate of Rs.50/- per month and also future mesne profits from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of the suit property. 16. The plaintiff - Mosque has also claimed damages for use and occupation in a sum of Rs.1,750/- from the first defendant for the period from 01.04.1999 to 28.02.2002 at the rate of Rs.50/- per month and also future mesne profits from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of the suit property. When it is found that the first defendant is only an encroacher and does not have any legal hold to retain the property and the plaintiff - Mosque is being found to be the owner of the property, it is seen that the plaintiff - Mosque is entitled to seek and obtain the relief of damages in a sum of Rs.1,750/- for the use and occupation for the period from 01.04.1999 to 28.02.2002 as prayed for and towards future mesne profits at the same rate from the date of plaint till the date of handing over of the possession of the property by the first defendant. 17. In the light of the above discussions, I hold that the suit property belonged to the revision petitioner - Mosque and that the first defendant is not entitled to any right whatsoever in the suit property and he is only an encroacher into the suit property. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff - Mosque is entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs sought for in the plaint. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered. POINT NO.IV: 18. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.02.2006, passed in O.S.No.121 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli, are set aside and the suit in O.S.No.121 of 2002 is decreed as prayed for with costs. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs.