Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. The another allegation levelled by the revision petitioner is that the first respondent Muthavalli had misappropriated the wakf property (Rs.60,000/-) and in this regard, the evidence of P.W.1 is clear and categorical to the effect that the first respondent had received Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Court as a mense profit in O.S.No.194 of 1968 filed by him for recovery of illegally alienated wakf property.

27. The Muthavall received Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Court as mense profits in O.S.No.194 of 1967 filed by him for recovering the illegally alienated wakf property and he has clearly stated that he paid Rs.4,500/- by way of Court fees, that he paid Rs.5,500/- towards his Advocate's fees and repaid Rs.50,000/- borrowed by him for conducting the case from District Munsif Court up to the High Court for recovering and safeguarding the Wakf Property namely 6.84 acres of Wet Land in Ariagosti Village and thereby, he had rendered true account therefor.