ABDUL AZIZ Vs. TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. THE respondent Wakf Board represented by its secretary filed suit O.S. No. 163/76 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli for a declaration that the suit property was a Wakf property and for possession alleging inter alia as follows: THE suit Wakf was known as "T.K. Ebramsn Rowther Charity Wakf" and the property was situate at Pappakurichi Village, which had been dedicated by the wakif for performing pious, religious and charitable purposes under a deed of dedication dated 19.4.1940. THE properties constituted a public wakf, the administration of which was governed by Central Act 29 of 1954. THE suit property had been alienated to the appellant by a sale deed dated 17.11.1905 (Ex.B-1) for Rs. 12,000/- by one E.N. Basheer Ahmed and the alienee was in unlawful possession. THE alienation was beyond the powers of the alienor and it could not bind the wakf. THE sale deed was not valid and the suit property in nature was inalienable. THE appellant entered into possession of the suit property only pursuant to the impugned sale and he was continuing in unlawful occupation of the suit property. In the course of scrutiny of unauthorised alienations, the respondent traced the present occupation and filed the suit. THE suit was in time.

(2.) THE appellant resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows: THE suit property was not wakf property. No valid wakf had been created. THE suit wakf was invalid under Mohamadan Law. Ebramsa Rowther was very old and infirm. His son Kader Batcha by fraud, coercion and undue influence brought about the alleged dedication deed while Ebramsa Rowther was completely under his control. Ebramsa Rowther was not the absolute owner of the property and he had no absolute power of disposal. THE properties were joint acquisitions. THEy were never transferred to the wakf, nor any of the sons held the properties as manager. THE properties always had a private character and there was no divesting of ownership. It had inherent invalidity. THE owners by common agreement requested arbitrators to allot some properties to charity and this was done. THE wakf, if any, had been repudiated even at the inception and the properties were divided and allotted among the co-owners. THE appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without any notice of wakf. THE plaint was barred by limitation, the appellant and his predecessors-in-title having prescribed title by adverse possession for well over the statutory period.

(3.) ON the question of limitation, the learned Counsel relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the descendants of the original founder had been treating the property as their own property. He also submitted that the reliance placed by the courts below in Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by its Secretary v. Sannsasi Munayathiriyan (1981 11 MLJ 176 = 94 L.W. 511) was wrong as the Wakf deed in that case was not disputed and the vendor and the vendee were entirely different. In the present case, no connection with the Muthavalli had been established.