RAHMATH BI Vs. STATE WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions are at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 258 of 1980 and O. S. 111 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Vellore, and arise out of the dismissal of 1. A. 2681 of 1980 in 0. S. 258 of 1980 and I. A. 2440 of 1980 in 0. S. 111 of 1980, filed under O. 23, R. 1 (3), C. P. C., praying for the withdrawal of the suits 0. S. 258 of 1980 and 0. S. 111 of 1980, with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petitioners in C. R. P, 3311 of 1980 instituted 0. S. 258 of 1980 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's court, Vellore. with reference to two items of properties praying for a declaration of their title and for an injunction restraining the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the properties or by taking forcible possession of the properties by execution of the decree in 0. S. 958 of 1967. According to the case of the petitioners, on 9-2-1967, they purchased the suit properties for a sum of Rs. 7500 from one Mahaboob Bi and that they were is possession of the properties so -purchased. While so, the petitioners alleged that the Wakf Board had instituted a suit against one Maimoona Bi in 0. S. 958 of 1967, District Munsif's court, Vellore, and obtained ex parte decree against her for possession of the suit properties. The suit according to the petitioners, was instituted against wrong person and that the petitioners were not parties to the same and did not know anything about the decree therein: but that the Wakf Board by filing E. P. 966 of 1979, attempted to take possession of the properties. Alleging that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the properties and that they had also prescribed title to the properties by adverse possession, the petitioners prayer for the reliefs set out earlier.

(2.) Likewise, the petitioners in C, R. P. 47 of 1981 instituted 0. S. III of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif's Court. Vellore. praying for a declaration that they are the owners of the suit I)ropertie5 and for restraining the Wakf Board from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the properties by execution of the decree passed in 0. S. 1025 of 1967, District Munsif's Court, Vellore, and for other incidental reliefs. There also, the petitioners claimed that their father Mohammed Hussain Sahib purchased on 27-8-1951 the suit properties from one Ahamed Hussain and that ever since the date of the purchase, the father of the petitioners was in possession and that after his death, the petitioners continued to remain in possession of the properties. According to the case of the petitioners, the Wakf Board instituted a suit 0. & 1025 of 1967 against one Ammaji Bi and was attempting to interfere with the paitioners, possession and enjoyment of the properties on the basis of such a decree which, according to the petitioners, was obtained against a wrong person, who had no interest whatever in the suit properties. Alleging that the petitioners came to know about tha obtaining of such a decree by the Board and that the Board had als() taken steps for securing possession of the properties, the petitioners instituted 0. S. III of 1980 Praying for the relief set out earlier. In both the suits, the respondent herein has been impleaded as the defendant and the respondent has not even filed a written statement in the suits.

(3.) In I. A. Nos. 2681 of 1980 and 2440 of 1980. in 0. S. No. 258 of 1980 and 0. S. 111 of 1980, respectively the petitioners prayed for the withdrawal of the suits on the ground that the suits were bad for want of notice under S. 36 of the Wakf Act, 1954 which is mandatory, and that the petitioners should, therefore, be permitted to withdraw the suits with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action af ter issuing a proper notice. The learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore who dealt with 1. A. 2681 of 1980 in 0. S. 258 of 1980 was not inclined to accept the stand taken by the petitioners in C. R. P. 3311 of 1980 that S. 56 of the Wakf Act 1954, is mandatory and in this view dismissed the application, while the learned DistrIct Munsif, Vellore who dealt with 1. A. 2440 of 1980 in 0. S. I I I of 1980, was of the view that a suit without a notice under S. 56 of the Wakf Act has to be dismissed and therefore, no option is left to permit the withdrawal of such a suit. Consequent to the conclusion so arrived at I. A. 2681 of 1980 and 1. A. 2440 of 1980 in 0. S. 258 of 1980 and 0. S. 111 of 1980 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, and District Munsif's Court. Vellore respectively, were dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in these civil revision petitions.