V T DURAISWAMI Vs. FIVE GORI THAIKAL WAKF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the trial Court in two suits namely, O.S. Nos. 449 and 451 of 1978 filed by S. Gori Thaikal Wakf, Vridachalam, before the District Munsif, Vridachalam. Both the suits were dismissed. A.S. Nos. 62 and 63 of 1984 were preferred before the Sub Court, Vridachalam, by the plaintiff. The appellate Court allowed both the appeals and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the said judgment, defendants 1 arid 2 in O.S. No. 449 of 1978 have filed Second Appeal No. 972 of 1986 while defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 451 of 1978 and fourth defendant in the same suit have filed Second Appeal No. 973 of 1986 and Second Appeal No. 1242 of 1986 respectively.

(2.) IT is not necessary to deal with the mutual pleadings in both the suits having regard to the scope of the legal issue which is found to be sufficient for the disposal of all the three Second Appeals. IT would be sufficient to point out that both the suits were filed by the plaintiff/Wakf seeking recovery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits from the respective defendants claiming that the suit properties belong to the Wakf. In both the suits, the defendants contended that the properties were not trust properties and they were only private properties of one Syed Kasim Saheb and others and after their death their legal heirs had sold the properties to the defendants who had purchased the same for valuable consideration. The suits were also barred by limitation not having been filed within the period of limitation under Article 96 of the Limitation Act after the appointment of Muthavalli and that they had also perfected title by adverse possession.

(3.) NEITHER the provision relating to the commencement of the Act (Section 1) nor Section 107 specifically stipulates any retrospective effect. But a reading of Section 112 would appear to give effect to the provisions of the Act even with reference to the actions taken under repealed Act. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether Section 107 would apply to pending proceedings or not. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on both sides have submitted their respective points in an elaborate manner and have also relied upon several rulings touching the issue as dealt with hereunder.