PUDUCHERRY STATE WAKF BOARD Vs. RAJIYA NACHIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions have been preferred by the revision petitioners/respondents/defendants 1 to 3 as against the order dated 30.04.2008 in I.A.Nos.40, 76, 77 and 104 of 2008 in W.T.O.S.No.1 of 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Puducherry Wakf Tribunal, Karaikal in allowing the I.A.No.40 of 2008, in dismissing the I.A.Nos.76 and 77 of 2008 and in allowing the I.A.No.104 of 2008. C.R.P.No.2940 of 2008 (I.A.No.40 of 2008)

(2.) THE first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.40 of 2008 inter alia averring that she has filed the suit W.T.O.S.No.1 of 2008 praying for the relief of declaration that she is the owner of the suit properties and for injunction against the three revision petitioners/ respondents/defendants along with another and that the revision petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 are not to interfere with her peaceful possession and presently she is enjoying the suit properties as per release deed dated 19.12.1973 executed by her mother and as per Kalyana Kaditham dated 08.9.1982 in regard to some of the properties and that the second revision petitioner/second respondent summoned her to T.R.Pattinam Periya Pallivasal premises and obtained the signatures in various papers under compelling circumstances and being a Pardanishi, she signed the said papers without reading the contents of the same and that copies of the said papers have been given to her and since the second revision petitioner/second respondent has acted against the statutory provisions of Wakf Act, his action is without legal significance and she never intended to hand over possession to the second revision petitioner or to anyone and she asserts that she is the owner of the suit properties and has been in possession of the same and therefore, has prayed for the relief of ad-interim injunction.

(3.) THE revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 have filed I.A.Nos.76 and 77 of 2008 inter alia mentioning that the suit properties are the wakf properties and that the third revision petitioner has been appointed by the Wakf Board and that the present suit has been filed by the first respondent /plaintiff without issuance of notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act, which is a mandatory one etc. and further that without statutory notice, there is no cause of action for the filing of the suit and therefore, pray for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code.