P RADHAKRISHNAIAH,; J VENKATARAMA REDDY,; TANGUTUR Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the defendants against the decree and Judgment in O.S. No. 63/1976, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore decreeing the suit for possession filed by the Wakf.

(2.) Defendants 1, 25, 51 and 52 preferred A.S.504/1996, defendant No. 18 preferred A.S. 1353/1996, defendant No. 88 preferred A.S.1228/1997, defendant No. 45 preferred A.S.1240/1997 and defendants 12, 13 and 14 preferred A.S. 171/1998.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that Fathekhanpet Mosque locally known as Kalam Mosque, situated in Nellore is a public wakf from times immemorial. An extent of Ac. 18-04 cents situated in S. Nos. 480/1, 480/2, 537/1, 542, 536 and 619 at Bit-II, Nellore District is a part of the property that had been endowed for upkeep and performance of Khatib and Mouzzan services in the said mosque. The incumbents of the office were enjoying the income of the said property towards their remuneration for the services rendered by them. They have no right or interest in the property. It had learnt that the persons who were rendering services have unlawfully alienated the schedule properties to various defendants. They cannot get any right in the property, as the vendors themselves have no right of alienation. They are void and not binding. They are trespassers in the eye of law. After due enquiry, the wakf board published Gazette notification dated 12-5-1963 under Sec. 5 of Central Act 29 of 1964 stating that the suit properties belonging to the mosque are wakf properties. The defendants did not file any suit within a period of one year as provided under Sec. 6 of the Wakf Act. Therefore, it was entitled to recover possession. The suit was within time by reason of the provisions of Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Amendment Act 29 of 1959, and there is no limitation for a suit to be instituted by virtue of Sec. 10 of the Indian Limitation Act. Therefore, it sought possession of the suit property after evicting the defendants therefrom.