THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2876 of 2009 Dated:- 01st April, 2011 Between:- Mohd. Ahmed Ali Khan and others …Petitioners AND The A.P.State Wakf Board and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2876 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.162 of 2003 by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). 2. The petitioners’ herein are the plaintiffs’ and the respondents’ herein are the defendants’ before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiffs’ filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2003 before the Tribunal contending inter alia that one Mohd. Wajid Ali Khan – the maternal uncle of plaintiff No.1 had endowed some property for graveyard known as Takia Hzt. Mahboob Ali Shah Qibla, situated at Imambada, Hyderabad, and that he got the same registered vide Memo No.484 on 27.09.1950 under file No.2469/2 in the year 1350 E and that he was the Wakif and Mutawalli of the said graveyard till his death and that he died on 17.07.1964 and that he had no male issues and that plaintiff No.1 is his nephew. It is also his case that during the lifetime of said Mohd. Wajid Ali Khan, he desired that his nephew – plaintiff No.1 should be the Mutawalli of the said graveyard and that after demise of Mohd. Wajid Ali Khan, plaintiff No.1 had been managing and supervising the Wakf property and that plaintiff No.1 submitted an application on 27.04.1967 to the first defendant – A.P. Wakf Board to get the Towliath in his name and to appoint him as Mutawalli. 4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed separate Written Statements and the second defendant – daughter of Mohd. Wajid Ali Khan, denied that plaintiff No.1 was rendering services to the Wakf in question during the lifetime of her father and that he was subsequently managing the Wakf property. Her claim is that she, being the eldest daughter of Mohd. Wajid Ali Khan, is entitled to claim Towliath. 5. Evidence was let in by the parties before the Tribunal in support of their respective contentions. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, plaintiff No.1 died and subsequently, plaintiffs 2 to 11 have been brought on record as Legal Representatives of plaintiff No.1. 6. Though there was an earlier round of litigation in this matter, there is no need to refer to the same in detail, since I am inclined to remand back the matter to the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, observed as follows:- “….Ex.A.32 is an order dated 28.01.1994 passed in W.P.No.11878 of 1993 by the Hon’ble High Court wherein the appointment of the Defendant No.2 as Mutawalli by the defendant No.1 vide orders dated 09.05.1993 was set aside by the Board and directed to dispose of the application of the Plaintiff No.1 afresh after giving him an opportunity. Meanwhile, the 2nd defendant herein was allowed to continue as Mutawalli on adhoc basis. Ex.A.33 is the copy of orders passed in W.A.No.229 of 1994 dated 08.03.1994 wherein the validity of the order passed in Ex.A.32 was challenged by the Plaintiff No.1 herein but the W.A. was dismissed.” “….Thereafter the Defendant No.2 continued to work as Mutawalli on adhoc basis as per orders passed in Ex.A.32 and A.33.” “….The appointment was challenged in W.P.No.11878 of 1993 before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court by order dated 28.01.1994, set aside her appointment as Mutawalli but allowed her to discharge the duties on adhoc basis till the determination of disputes between them by this Tribunal. The Plaintiff No.1 filed W.A.No.229 of 1994 aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No.11878 of 1993. The order passed in W.P.No.11878 of 1993 Ex.A.32 dated 28.01.1994 was upheld. These Exs.A.32 and A.33 reveal the adhoc possession and management of the defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property.” 8. No representation for Sri Srinivas Chowdary, learned counsel for the second respondent. Heard the arguments of Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners’ and Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel representing the first defendant – A.P. Wakf Board. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has misread the order dated 08.03.1994 passed in Writ Appeal No.229 of 1994, which is marked as Ex.A.33. in Ex.A.33, this court observed as follows:- “…Regarding the rights of the second respondent, it may be mentioned that she has come into possession of the Wakf institution and its property pursuant to the impugned order and there is no justification into continue her in the management and possession of the property of the institution after questioning the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. We therefore consider it just and proper to direct the fourth respondent to take over the possession and management of the Wakf in question under direct management pending determination of the question of the appointment of Mutawalli as directed by the learned Single Judge and we do so. 10. A reading of the above order makes it crystal clear that the Tribunal erred in holding that this Court allowed the second defendant to continue as Mutawalli on adhoc basis. In fact, this Court in the said Writ Appeal, has directed the first defendant – A.P. Wakf Board to takeover the possession and management of the Wakf in question and had further categorically held that there is no justification to continue the second respondent (second defendant in the suit) in the management and possession of the property of the institution. 11. Keeping in view the categorical finding of this Court in the earlier round of litigation and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and reasonable to remand back the matter to the Tribunal. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for de novo consideration of the matter. The Tribunal shall, after putting both the parties on notice and after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. At this stage, it is represented that by virtue of order of interim suspension of the judgment of the Tribunal passed by this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.3985 of 2009 on 17.07.2009, the petitioners herein have been continuing in possession and managing the affairs of the Wakf in question. If that is so, both the parties shall maintain status quo as on today, till the orders are passed by the Tribunal. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 01st April, 2011 Bvv