THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO S.A.No.334 OF 1997 JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. The appellant herein is an unsuccessful defendant against whom a decree has been obtained by the respondent-plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from making any additions, alterations including the construction to the suit schedule property and also for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to dismantle the newly constructed shed raised by him, which relief was subsequently sought through amendment and was granted. The plaintiff claiming to be a mutawalli of the wakf property filed the suit stating that one Fiaz Mohammed Khan was the original tenant of the plaintiff and after the death of said Fiaz Mohammed Khan, the defendant who is his son became the tenant of the said house and executed the lease deed dated 13.11.1984 in favour of the plaintiff. The same was contested by the defendant denying about the very right of the plaintiff to claim as mutawalli. In fact, the father of the defendant was residing in the suit house as one of the beneficiaries of late Sir Nizamath Jung and had been paying the nominal rent in favour of the trust which was for the benefit of beneficiaries of Nizamath Jung. After the death of his father, the defendant being his son continued to live in the premises as one of the beneficiaries of Nizamath Jung. The defendant has not executed any lease deed as stated by the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that he is a mutawalli of the suit schedule property does not arise and that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. With these and other allegations as contended by both sides, the trial Court framed the issues and proceeded with the suit, wherein the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs A1 to A4 whereas the defendant examined himself as DW1 and no documents were marked but on behalf of the Court Ex.C1 was marked. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence decreed the suit with costs. Further appeal was also in vain. Hence, the second appeal. The twin submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant are that firstly since the plaintiff was not appointed as mutawalli, no suit as such would have been filed by him since he lacks locus standi and secondly, the defendant is a tenant of a different trust and also beneficiary under the said trust as such the present suit is not maintainable. With regard to the first submission, the concurrent finding of fact is that the plaintiff was not having any order appointing him as mutawalli at the time of filing of the suit and that he was appointed as mutavalli subsequently. With regard to the second objection, even though the defendant pleaded that he is no way concerned with the plaintiff and that he is a tenant of some other trust, no much stress has been made nor any issue has been framed in this regard as to the existence of jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant or between the defendant and the said Sir Nizamath Jung Trust. In the absence of such findings given or being held, it cannot be said that the appellant has made out his case in this regard. Having regard to the fact that both the Courts below have given findings of fact against the defendant concurrently, it cannot be interfered with in this appeal under section 100 of C.P.C. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. However, having regard to the specific plea that the appellant is a beneficiary under the different trust and is entitled to certain benefits, it is open to him to file a separate comprehensive suit seeking appropriate relief and the same may be disposed of on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the findings in this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dt. 17.03.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO S.A.No.334 OF 1997 Dt. 17.03.2011