STATE WAKF BOARD MADRAS Vs. SUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these second appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the learned District Munsif of Pattukottai in O. S. Nos. 784, 786, 788 and 790 of 1967 and the appeals arising therefrom on the file of the Court of the District judge, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur. The appellant in all these second appeals is one and the same, namely, the State Wakf Board, Madras, represented by its secretary. The suits were instituted for recovery of the properties involved in these suits. According to the appellant, the properties were Wakf properties; they have been alienated by one Sheik Dawood illegally and unauthorised, and therefore the appellant was entitled to recover possession of those properties. The defence put forward by the various defendants are reflected in the following issues framed for trial by the trial Courts:

(2.) THE learned District Munsif, who tried the suits, hold that the suit properties were Wakf properties and further held on issue No. 3 that it was not, merely a sum of Rs. 27/- per year that was charged on the properties in question. He also held that the suits were maintainable. But he dismissed all the suits only on the ground that they were barred by limitation. On appeals preferred by the appellant herein, the learned District Judge of West Thanjavur, Thanjavur confirmed the findings of the trial Court on all the points and dismissed the suits only on the ground of limitation again. It is against these judgments and decrees that the present second appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff in the suits.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Court below erred in holding that even on the application of Article 96 of the schedule to the limitation Act, 1963, the suits are barred by limitation. According to the Courts below, it is Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which has replaced Arts. 134b and 134-C of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 that applied to the case and even on the application of that Article, the suits were barred by limitation, because the vendor who sold the suit properties died in 1953 and the suits were instituted only in 1967 after the expiry of more than 12 years. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this conclusion of the Courts below is erroneous and for this purpose relies on two judgments of this Court and two judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Before I refer to the judgments relied on, it is easier to extract the relevant articles of the limitation act applicable to the present case. Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908 related to recovery of possession of immovable property comprised in an endowment, while Article 134-C was concerned with recovery of possession of movable property comprised in an endowment. Since we are concerned in the present suits only with immovable properties, the relevant Article of the First schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, is Article 134-B and the same reads as follows: description OF SUIT PERIOD OF LIMITATION: TIME FROM WHICH PERIOD BEGINS TO RU by the manager of a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been transferred by a previous manager for a valuable consideration. Twelve years. The death, resignation or removal of the transferor. It is Articles 134-B and 134-C that have been replaced by Article 96 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same is as follows: description OF SUIT PERIOD OF LIMITATION TIME FROM WHICH PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN by the manager of a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of movable or immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been transferred by a previous manager for a valuable consideration. Twelve years The date of death, resignation or removal of the transferor or the date of appointment of the plaintiff as manager of the endowment whichever is later.