JUDGMENT
A.B. Naik, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length.
2.This Civil Revision Application is filed by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad being Suit No.5/2001. The learned Member of the Tribunal dismissed the suit by the judgment and order dated 20.6.2003. The plaintiff thus approached this Court by filing Revision Application U/s 83 sub-section 9 proviso of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit came to be filed against five defendants for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff stated in the claim clause of the suit that the order dated l6th September 2000 and 7.ll.2000 issued by the Secretary, Marathwada Wakf Board, Aurangabad being illegal and without any power conferred on him by the Marathwada Wakf Board and for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them, their servants, agents, subordinates not to cause any obstruction, interference in possession of the plaintiff, or interfere in performance of the religious function and affairs of Dargah, mosque, Khankhah rooms and adjacent Graveyard of Dargah of Hazrat Shahnoor Hamvi and mandatory injunction against the defendants Nos.l,2 and 3 that they should terminate the illegally formed Managing Committee and in future not to constitute illegally Managing Committee of Dargah Hazrat Shahnoor Hamvi Saheb, situated at Shahnoorwadi, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. The parties will be referred to as plaintiff and the defendant and Dargah of Hazrat Shahnoor Hamvi Saheb will be referred to Dargah hereinafter.
3.The plaintiff contended that on 13.ll.2000 he has issued notices to the members of the Board which were duly served on them. It is contended by the plaintiff that in the premises of Dargah there are three more Dargahs are situated. All the Dargahs are Wakf properties and the said properties are published in the Government gazette as required under the Act. He contended that in the premises of Dargah there is a mosque, two khankhahs and 9 rooms situated adjacent to the Graveyard. He contended that the Wakf is Sunni Wakf. The object of the Wakf are customs and usages of the sects of Chishtiya and Quadariya, as sanctioned by Hanafi school of Mohammedan Law. The spiritual post of the Sajjadanashin of the said Dargah is continuous since long. The plaintiff contended that his father was Sajjadanashin of Dargah as per Shijra of the Chistiya and Quadriya sects. It is contended by the plaintiff that his father was recognised as Sajjadanashin of the Dargah by eminent Sufis Divan Saheb of Ajmer Sharif, Sajjadanashin of Nizamuddin Aulia of Delhi, Sajjadanashin of Gulberga and also by Fooqras on 9th Zeeqad 1381 Hijri.
4. It is contended by the plaintiff that on 14.7.1965 the father of the plaintiff in capacity of Sajjadanashin of the Dargah as a spiritual head held a ceremony of Sajjadanashin of the plaintiff and since then, the plaintiff is being recognised by Sajjadanashin. The plaintiff also contended that he performed all religious duties of the said Dargah continuously from 1965 as per Chishtiya and Quadriya sect. The plaintiff performed every year the annual Urs of the Dargah since 1965. Prior to 1965 the father of the plaintiff was performing Urs of the said Dargah. It is contended by the plaintiff that his father as a spiritual head and Sajjadanashin of Dargah was residing in the rooms in the said Dargah which is surrounded by the compound wall. He contended that after demise of his father he was buried besides Dargah of Hazrat Shahnoor Hamvi towards eastern side and of the tomb. He contended that the tomb or Dargah of the father of the plaintiff was built by the plaintiff. He contended that after death of his father the plaintiff as a spiritual head and Sajjadanashin of Dargah started residing in the rooms called as Peela Hujre which consist of two rooms and one hall. Besides two rooms with two sheds are in possession of Mutwalli of Dargah Hazrat Khawaja Shamsuddin Shamsi Saheb. There are also some other rooms and sheds which are in possession of Mutwalli by name Khawaja Gous Mohiuddin. He contended that the plaintiff and for that purpose his father was in possession of the premises of Dargah, mosque and Khankhahs since last 80 years. Plaintiff contended that as per Section 3(1) of the Act, he being spiritual head and Sajjadanashin he is also Mutwalli of the said Dargah. 5.The plaintiff contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 without any notification and in contravention of Section 28, 64 and 65 of the Act have illegally constituted a Managing Committee of the Dargah under the Presidentship and Secretaryship of defendant Nos.4 and 5. He contended that there is no provision under the Act or the repealed Act of 1954, whereby defendants Nos.2 and 3 can appointing Managing Committee even where as spiritual head of Sajjadanashin and Mutwalli is continuously performing all the religious affairs of the said Dargah. He contended that appointment of such illegal Managing Committee amounts to illegal interference of the religious functions of Dargah. The appointment of the Committee is bad in law and it does not confer any power as provided U/s 27 of the Act. He contended that defendant No.2 cannot interfere in the religious affairs of Dargah, mosque and Khankhahs. He contended without any authority of law, defendant No.3 issued two letters in the name of defendant No.4 for taking possession of the rooms from the plaintiff. He contended that defendant No.3 unauthorisedly issued such letters.
6. The plaintiff contended that on 6.2.2001, defendants Nos.4 and 5 illegally acted on the illegal and unauthorised directions of defendant No.3 and put their lock on one room and has illegally obstructed the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 be directed to remove the lock. He contended that due to collusion between defendant No.3 and the Managing Committee, there is an apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that in near future they may take the law in their hand and dispossess him from the rooms. So therefore, he was compelled to seek injunction against the respondents. He contended that the plaintiff apprehended some action by the defendants, therefore, he moved the police authorities for the protection by submitting an application on 26th October 2000, but it was of no help he therefore, contended that the cause of action arose for filing the suit on l6.9.2000, 9.ll.2000, 26.10.2000, 13.l.2001 and 6.2.2001. With these averments the plaintiff sought declaration and injunction, the suit came to be filed on 27.2.2001. 7.On receipt of the summons of the suit, defendants Nos.3 to 5 appeared and filed their written statement denying all adverse contentions raised by the plaintiff. The said written statement came to be filed on 29th September 2001. The defendants denied that the plaintiff at any time acted in capacity of Mutwalli of the Dargah or as the Sajjadanashin. The defendants admitted that the father of the plaintiff was buried within the precinct of Dargah with the permission of the Board on certain conditions. They contended that the plaintiff has no concern either with the premises or the property of the Dargah. They denied that the plaintiff or his father was in possession of the property since last 80 years. They contended that the Committee was legally constituted on 20.12.97 with approval of the Chairman initially for a period of three years. By a Resolution dated 16th October 1991 Board delegated its power to the Chairman U/s 18 of the Act. They submitted that the period of Committee is extended from time to time and lastly the same was extended upto 3l.8.2002. It is contended that the Committee is functioning legally and lawfully. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has no concern either as religious head as Sajjadanashin or Mutwalli of the institution as plaintiff has no concern with the Dargah, there is no question of interference in the performance of the religious service as alleged by the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to challenge the letters. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right to stay in the premises in the capacity as Sajjadanashin. It is contended that there is no Sajjadanashin or Mutwalli recognised by the Board for the Dargah. It is denied that any person is recognised as Sajjadanashin or mutwalli of Dargah. All the religious functions and the affairs of the Dargah are being performed by the management under the supervision and control of Marathwada Wakf Board. They contended that no valid notice is given to the Board as required by law. It is contended that the plaintiff is one of the members of the Managing Committee of Dargah since 1997 alongwith defendant Nos.l and 5. This fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff himself is one of the member of the Managing Committee, he cannot claim himself as Sajjadanashin of Dargah. It is contended that if the plaintiff claimed to be Sajjadanashin then he would not have been appointed as Member of the Committee. The defendant is also challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal contending that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the constitution of Managing Committee. They contended that in view of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the suit.
8. It is contended that after reorganisation of States, this area called Marathwada area was included in State of Maharashtra. Previously it was the part and parcel of Hyderabad State. Central Wakf Act, 1954 was applicable. Under the said Act of 1954, the original Committee of the Board was formed in 1955 to the extent of Marathwada region to manage and supervise the Wakfs constituted in this area. Accordingly, all the Wakfs in this area are being supervised and managed by the Committee. It is contended that survey of Wakf in Marathwada area was conducted by the Government and the Wakfs were published in Government Gazette in the year 1973. It is submitted that at that time there was no lineal descendant to be appointed as Mutwalli or Sajjadanashin as Dargah was under direct management of the then Government of Hyderabad and the Marathwada Wakf Board became the Mutwalli of the said institution and the entries to that effect published in the Government Gazette. The said Dargah is directly under the management of the Board. The Board performs religious rites such as Sandal, Urs etc. The Board has appointed a Managing Committee U/s 16 of 1954 Act and on commencement of 1995 Act, by virtue of Section 18 the Board continued to supervise and manage the institution. It is contended that neither the father of the plaintiff Nanhe Miyan Saheb in his life time nor the plaintiff after him is Sajjadanashin or Mutwalli of Dargah. The said Dargah was founded by Saint Hazrat Syed Shah Noor Hamvi, some 320 years ago. He died issueless, who belong to the spiritual sect silsila “Qadaria”. It is contended that the plaintiff cannot function and perform the duties as Sajjadanashin. It is contended that the office of Mutwalli is secular one while Sajjadanashin is a religious office. Generally the founder of Khankha (Institution) is the first Sajjadanashin and after his death the spiritual line is continued by succession by virtue of the directions of the founder. The succession of Sajjadanashin is supposed to continue the spiritual line. The feature of the office of Sajjadanashin is that the original founder has a right to nominate his successor who in turn enjoys the said right. The chain of preceptors (called silsila) comes into being and followers known as “Murids” who pay homage not only to the founder, but also to the whole line including the present line called Pir or Murshid. It is contended that in absence of directions of Khankha i.e. first Sajjadanashin the appointment may be made by election through valid customs i.e. through Murids usually elect a competent person as Sajjadanashin. It is contended that in view of the specific procedure of appointment of Sajjadanashin the Civil Court cannot entertain such prayer of the petitioner. It is contended that the founder died issueless and as such he has no lineal descendant to be appointed as Mutwalli or Sajjadanashin of the Khankha and there is no proof of chain of preceptors appointed as successors of Sajjadanashin by his followers. It is contended that the entire Dargah and its surrounding had been under direct control of Ex-Hyderabad Government and was not only supervised and managed by the said Government through Department called Umoor Mazhabi, but also spiritual rites of Sandal etc. at the time of yearly Urs are performing by the Government Officers such as Tahsildar etc. They denied that there is any proof to show that deceased father of the plaintiff in his life time has been appointed as Sajjadanashin or any evidence to show that the plaintiff is using or used the premises of Khankha for imparting religious lessons to the community in the capacity as Sajjadanashin. It is contended that the plaintiff can neither claim that he is a spiritual head that is Sajjadanashin of Khankha nor he can claim that his deceased father was spiritual head of the institution. They denied the claim of the plaintiff that he was appointed as Sajjadanashin or recognised by other Dargahs as claimed by him. It is contended that the father of the plaintiff has come to Hyderabad from Utter Pradesh and he was permanent resident of Hyderabad and used to come to Aurangabad casually at the time of Urs of Dargah, who was allowed to stay temporarily in the premises with the devotees for that period only with the permission of the Board and its Managing Committee. After plaintiffs father died some 35 years back at Hyderabad and his body was brought from Hyderabad and allowed to be buried in the campus of Dargah by the Board. The plaintiff is taking advantage of this fact and recently started to reside in the residential portion of the Dargah complex consist of two rooms and a hall forcibly, claiming himself to be Sajjadanashin of Dargah without any right. They contended that the plaintiff cannot claim any relief as Sajjadanashin, as there is no proper appointment of Sajjadanashin in favour of the plaintiff.
9. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as 12 issues. The parties went to the trial on the basis of the said issues. The parties led evidence to support their respective cases. At the trial the plaintiff did not press his claim so far as claim as Mutwalli of the said Dargah is concerned. He mainly pressed the claim as Sajjadanashin of the said Dargah. The plaintiff examined himself and six other witnesses to establish that he was appointed as Sajjadanashin. On considering the evidence of the plaintiff the learned Member of the Wakf Tribunal came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim on all counts and accordingly, by the judgment and order dated 26.6.2003 the learned Presiding Officer of the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad dismissed the suit.
10. This revision is filed by the plaintiff challenging the said order U/s 83 of the Act. The revision to this Court is maintainable by virtue of Section 83 sub-section 9 proviso which reads thus :
“Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit.”
In this revision application, this Court in the aforesaid provisions has to consider to the extent of its (i) correctness; (ii) legality and (iii) propriety of the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court under the revision is not as commonly known as revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court in Revision U/s 115 of the C.P.C. If I am satisfied that the impugned order does not fall in any of the three categories referred to in the Section then only the question to interfere in the order will arise. With this backdrop of the statutory provisions and the jurisdiction conferred by Section 83(9), proviso, I have to consider the submissions made by Shri Godsay and Shri Gangapurwala, for the respective parties.
11. Before referring to the rival contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Act. As the case in hand revolves around the right of the plaintiff to challenge the action of the Board in issuing the letters and further injunction, if the plaintiff established his rights as Sajjadanashin of the said Dargah. It is not disputed that Dargah is an ancient wakf duly registered and recognised as such. It is also not disputed the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954 and Act, 1995 are applicable. The Act nowhere defines the term Sajjadanashin but the Act has defined Mutwalli. Section 3 sub-clause (i) defines term “Mutwalli” means any person appointed either verbally or under any deed or instrument by which a wakf has been created, or by a competent authority, to be the mutwalli of a wakf and includes any person who is a mutwalli of a wakf by virtue of any custom or who is a naib-mutwalli, khadim, mujawar, sajjadanashin, amin or other person appointed by a mutwalli to perform the duties of a mutwalli and save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person, committee or corporation for the time being managing or administering any wakf or wakf property. Term sajjadanashin has been explained in principles of Mohamedan law by Sir Dinshaw Mulla, means the spiritual superior. The Sajjadanashin is head of Khankhah, a Mohamedan institution analogous in many respects to a math where Hindu religious instruction is given. He is the teacher of the religious doctrine and rules of life. The word Sajjadanashin is derived from Sajjada that is carpet used by Mahomedans for offering prayer and nashin means sitting. The Sajjadanashin takes precedence on the carpet during prayers. A Sajjadanashin is a spiritual office and he has certain spiritual functions to perform. It is held by several judicial decisions right from the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal Vs. Baluswami Ayyar and others reported in A.I.R. 1922 Privy Council 123, that a Sajjadanashin is the teacher of religious doctrine and rules of life and the Manager of the institution and the administrator of its charities and has in most cases a larger interest in him than the ordinary mutwalli but neither the Sajjadanashin nor the mutwalli has any right belonging to Wakf property it does not vest in him. With this principle coupled with the definition U/s 3(1), I have to find out whether the plaintiff succeeded in establishing the claim as Sajjadanashin of the said Dargah and whether he can retain the possession of the rooms. From the finding that has been recorded by the Tribunal and negatived the claim of the plaintiff holding that he has failed to establish that he has appointed as Sajjadanashin. The definition contained in the Act and considering the judicial pronouncement of the Privy Council, referred to above, the Sajjadanashin has no interest in the Wakf property, hence he is not entitled to any relief of declaration or injunction in respect of property of Dargah. Secondly, I have to consider the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, which empowers the Tribunal to determine the dispute regarding Wakf. Considering the provisions of Section 71 have my own doubt whether this suit as filed is maintainable before the Tribunal?. Be as it may, without going into this controversy about maintainability of the suit before the Tribunal, I will have to consider the rights of the plaintiff first as per the plea raised by him in the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that since 1965 he is functioning as Sajjadanashin of Dargah and if the plaintiff succeeds in proving this fact as per issue No.4, then all other issues requires for consideration. To prove this fact the plaintiff stepped into witness box and examined himself. Besides the oral evidence, the plaintiff has relied on some documents. Those documents were considered and the learned Member has doubted the genuineness of those documents as the plaintiff himself has produced those documents after filing of the suit. I asked Mr.Godsay, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff as to who has proved these documents, the learned counsel has no satisfactory answer. At this stage the learned advocate made feeble attempt and prayed for a remand and give an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove the document. I cannot consider this request as the plaintiff who has came to the Tribunal should have taken steps at appropriate stage at the trial to lead satisfactory evidence should have proved the documents at proper stage. As the entire trial was over, an adverse verdict is pronounced against him and no case is made out for a remand. Hence the request is rejected. It appears that some documents are produced alongwith the list by the plaintiff and those documents were considered by the learned Member of the Tribunal without ascertaining the fact that whether the documents are proved as required under the Evidence Act. By virtue of Section 83 sub-section 5 of the Act, the Tribunal is deemed to be a Civil Court and have the same powers as may be exercised by the Civil Court under the Code. When the Tribunal is deemed to be Civil Court, then the procedure for proving the documents has to be followed. There is vast difference between production of documents and the proof of documents. It appears in the present case that plaintiff has produced some documents without proving the same and in my judgment, the learned Member has committed an error in relying on those documents. When the plaintiff has come to the Court with specific contention that he is Sajjadanashin of the Dargah, then he has to prove the fact by leading cogent evidence as burden lies on him to prove this fact. The plaintiff has examined 9 witnesses including the plaintiff to prove that he is Sajjadanashin of the Dargah. He has also produced the documentary evidence such as Khilafatnama, Sanad of Sajjadanashin, Shijra, some postal correspondence and the photographs. On the other hand, the defendants have placed reliance on the Gazette to show that the plaintiffs name is not recorded in any of the Gazette as Sajjadanashin. In para Nos.12 and 13 of the judgment, the learned Member of the Tribunal has considered the claim of the plaintiff as Sajjadanashin. The learned member of the Tribunal found from the cross-examination that the plaintiff has not produced the original document of Khilafatnama or Sajjadgi till his cross-examination is over. He has admitted that the man from Chishtiya Silsila can never become Sajjadanashin of Dargah. The learned Member recorded finding that the plaintiff has deliberately withheld the production of important documents such as Khilafatnama and Sajjadgi till his cross-examination is over. In the evidence the plaintiff was unable to specify the date on which his father made Khilafatnama making him as Sajjadanashin. The learned Member has noted that the plaintiff has avoided to tell the date when his father gave his Khilafat. Xerox copy which is produced is of 23.8.1965. Considering this document, the learned Member has noticed that there is no reference that plaintiffs father during his life time gave Khilafat in favour of the plaintiff, though, the plaintiff in cross-examination has stated that this fact is mentioned in the document dated 23.8.1965. The learned Member found that there is no mention of Khilafat being conferred on the plaintiff by his father in the document dated 23.8.65 which goes to show that the plaintiff must not have been nominated as Sajjadanashin by his father during his life time. This finding is recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the plaintiff and the statement made by him in the cross-examination. Therefore, the question would be whether this Court hearing a revision application filed U/s 83 sub-section 9 can interfere in the said finding by reappreciating the evidence as appellate Court. This Court has to find out whether the Tribunal has correctly, legally has determined the question. The question that was to be determined by the Tribunal is about the fact of plaintiffs claim as Sajjadanashin. As the plaintiff has come to the Court with a specific case that by letter dated 23.8.1965 he was appointed as Sajjadanashin and that fact has not been established by him and is not accepted by the Tribunal, hence this Court cannot reappreciate the oral evidence of the plaintiff in this revision. Moreover, the learned Member of the Tribunal has judged the demeanour of the plaintiff when his evidence was being recorded and the way he has answered the question has been mentioned at many places in the order. The learned Member of the Tribunal has referred in detail deposition of the plaintiff and recorded the findings that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was appointed by his father as Sajjadanashin. Therefore, in my judgment the finding recorded by the learned Judge that by the document dated 23.8.1965 fell short to establish that the plaintiff was nominated as Sajjadanashin by his father during his life time.
12. The learned Member has also noted some important facts and the admission given by the plaintiff in the evidence. The plaintiff admitted that a man from Chishtiya silsila can never become a Sajjadanashin of Dargah of Quadriya silsila. He admitted that Hazrat Shahnoormiya was from Quadriya silsila and the plaintiff being from Chishtiya silsila cannot be appointed as Sajjadanashin, this aspect has been considered by the learned Member of the Tribunal. The learned Member of the Tribunal noticing the fact that the documents are placed on record at belated stage and it has strengthen the suspicion of the learned Member of the Tribunal regarding genuineness of the document. If the plaintiff was really serious about his claim, he should have produced these documents either alongwith the plaint or before or at the time of his evidence started. As the learned Member has noticed that the documents were produced after the cross-examination of the plaintiff was over and moreover, the documents are not proved by examining the witnesses, as such it is not possible for this Court to interfere in the observation and the finding that have been recorded by the Tribunal. The learned Member of the Tribunal in para 16 of its order found that the documents are manipulated and the evidence on record is also not convincing but it contradicts the case of plaintiff on relevant points. It appears that the plaintiff is taking benefit of the fact that after demise of his father, he was buried near the tomb of Hazrat Shahnoormiya. It is the case of the defendant that with the permission of the Board, he was buried in the premises of Dargah. Shri Godsay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner was not able to demonstrate before this Court that only Sajjadanashin of the Dargah after his demise is permitted to be buried in the premises. It is not disputed that surroundings of Dargah, there are several tombs and several persons who were buried in the premises of the said Dargah. By the fact of burial of his father in the Dargah, by itself cannot establish that the plaintiff was appointed as Sajjadanashin or claim the post of Sajjadanashin. Plaintiff has not brought on record any positive evidence about his functions and religious duties. It is the claim of the plaintiff that his grand father was also Sajjadanashin and thereafter his father was appointed as Sajjadanashin and thereafter the plaintiff came to be appointed. This theory of the appointment of Sajjadanashin has not been accepted. The learned Member of the Tribunal has discarded the document of Vasiyat as it was produced after evidence was over and moreover, no witnesses have been examined to prove this document. Merely production of documents on record cannot prove the contents of documents and cannot establish the fact that the plaintiff was appointed as Sajjadanashin. The learned Member of the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff. The learned Member in para 17 of the order has observed ” that the socalled Khilafatnama alleged to have been made by Nanhemiya i.e. plaintiffs father during his life time and leads to an inference that the said Khilafatnama is cooked up document. As stated earlier there is no mention in the alleged Dastarbandi of a fact of any nomination made during life time of Nanhemiya concerning the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no reason to withhold the original document of Sajjadgi dated 23.8.1965 as well as the socalled Khilafatnama made by his father Nanhemiya.” The learned Tribunal has discarded the photographs produced by the plaintiff and as those are not produced and proved in accordance with law. The other documents such as correspondence produced by the plaintiff have also not been accepted, for the reasons stated in para l8 of the judgment. In my judgment the learned Tribunal has by recording valid and sound reasons has discarded the claim of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was appointed validly as Sajjadanashin. In my judgment therefore, the said findings being proper cannot be interfered by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. I find that the learned Member of the Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the suit of the plaintiff. The suit is legally decided and the evidence produced by the plaintiff has been properly appreciated and considered in its proper perspective as the findings are based on the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and in my judgment the appreciation of the evidence being proper and there are justified reasons assigned by the learned Judge in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. As the issue is in respect of plaintiffs claim to Sajjadanashin which the plaintiff has failed to prove and the suit therefore, rightly dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, in my judgment there is no compellable reason for this Court to entertain this revision application. For the sake of repetition I may say that the documents which were produced by the plaintiff were not proved in accordance with law. Some additional documents are filed alongwith revision application. As those documents either not produced or not proved before the Tribunal, I did not permit Shri Godsay, learned advocate to refer to those documents. As it is not disputed that the entire Dargah and surrounding properties are a Wakf property and the plaintiff who claims to be a Sajjadanashin has failed to establish his claim to that post and consequently he has no right to claim that he is Sajjadanashin, as he has failed to establish the fact that he was validly appointed as Sajjadanashin. In view of this aspect, I am of the view that the learned Member of the Tribunal was right in dismissing the suit. As everything turns on the finding on issue No.4, as I had considered the finding recorded by the learned Member of the Tribunal on issue No.4. I accept the finding being valid. Once finding of the issue No.4 is accepted to be valid and proper, it is not necessary to consider afresh findings on the other issues as in my judgment they are all ancillary issues. If claim of the plaintiff as Sajjadanashin is accepted then only other findings recorded by the Tribunal has to be considered. As plaintiff has failed to establish his basic claim of Sajjadanashin, in my judgment there is no substance in this Revision Application.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed.