IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.263 OF 2006. (JUMMA MASJID TRUST KALI (DK)....VS.. JAYWANTA LAXMAN KAMBLE & OTH.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.M.Quazi, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : OCTOBER 04, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant trust is the original plaintiff. The Trust had filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration that the order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, confering ownership of the suit property was not binding on the trust. The trust also sought the possession of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Tenancy Tahsildar could not have decided the question of ownership of the defendants/ respondents over the suit property without issuing the notice to the plaintiff trust. 2. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiff and also denied that the trust was the owner of the suit property. It was pleaded by the defendants that Khwaja Beg, original owner of the suit property, had not created the trust of the suit property and had not granted the same to the plaintiff trust as a wakf. The defendants pleaded that the notices were issued by the Tenancy Tahsildar to the sons of Khwaja Beg, original owner of the suit property, and hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar was illegal. 3. The trial as well as the first appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the Tenancy Tahsildar had rightly issued the notices to the sons of Khwaja Beg who had expired in 1930 before passing order under the Bombay Tenancy Act. The first appellate Court held that there was no document executed by Khwaja Beg creating wakf of the suit property. It was observed by the first appellate Court by relying on the mutation entry, Exh.57 that the income of the property was to be utilized for the expenses of the mosque of the plaintiff and this entry did not show that the property belonged to the plaintiff trust. The first appellate Court held that the suit property was partitioned amongst the sons and daughter of Khwaja Beg in the year 1940 and had there been a wakf created by Khwaja Beg there was no question of partitioning the suit property. Even otherwise, according to the first appellate Court mere entry that the income should be utilised for expenses of the mosque did not create any title in favour of the plaintiff and a mere entry to the aforesaid effect in Exh.57 was also not effected with the concurrence of the owners of the property. Both the Courts, therefore, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by observing that the Tenancy Tahsildar had rightly issued the notices to the sons of Khwaja Beg as the plaintiff trust was not the owner of the suit property. 4. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of the fact based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.