THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.100 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.140 of 1997 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal against the respondents for a declaration that he is the hereditary Muthawalli of Bakkar Kasab Mosque, Nandyal, and the appointment of the 1st respondent- committee for the administration of the said Mosque is null and void and that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to act as Pesh-Imam of the said Masque. He pleaded that his grand father constructed the Mosque and has administered the same during his lifetime. It was further pleaded that the two sons of the grand father of the appellant have administered the Mosque and after their death, the appellant is discharging the functions of Muthawalli. The appointment of the 1st respondent- committee as well as the 2nd respondent as the Pesh- Imam of the Mosque was challenged on several grounds. The respondents opposed the suit by raising several grounds, touching upon the maintainability and lack of jurisdiction in the trial Court. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court through judgment, dated 21.08.2004. A.S.No.34 of 2004 filed by the appellant in the Court of V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Kurnool at Nandyal was dismissed on 17.08.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court framed three issues touching mostly on the jurisdiction as follows: 1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as sought for? and 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.26 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.32 were filed. At one stage of the proceedings, the trial Court transferred the suit to the A.P. Wakf Tribunal. However, the Tribunal returned the suit to the trial Court, on the ground that the Tribunal assumed exclusive jurisdiction only in respect of the suits filed subsequent to 01.07.1997. Therefore, the trial Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter. The Wakf Act and the Rules made thereunder vest the public as well as private wakfs and other Muslims religious institutions in the Wakf Board of the concerned State. In the instant case, the Gazette was published way back on 03.05.1963 notifying the Mosque in question and bringing it under the purview of the Wakf Board. The entries in the Gazette were filed as Ex.B.2. The publication was preceded by the survey report contemplated under the Wakf Act. Even if it is true that the Mosque was constructed by the grand father of the appellant, the fact remains that it stood vested in the Wakf Board by operation of law and publication of notification. The power to appoint Muthawallis or managing committees for Wakfs vests exclusively with the Wakf Board. The appellant has not chosen to impelad Wakf Board nor did he challenge the notification, through which the institution was notified. Though no specific issue was framed in this regard, being a pure question of law, it can be taken note of. Even if a second view is possible on the findings recorded by the Courts below, the appellant has to cross a stumbling block for availing any relief. In the absence of the Wakf Board as a party to the suit and challenge to any other notification, no relief could have been granted. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 16.06.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.100 of 2011 Date: 16.06.2011 JSU