972 and 973 of 1996, two applications being CMP Nos.
An additional plea was also taken by the appellants that they had also perfected the title in respect of the suit properties by way of adverse possession.
Iynthukori Thaikkal Wakf 5 Kori Durga Wakf in short the Wakf had instituted two suits in the Court of District Munsif, Vridachalam for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit properties as fully described in the plaint and for mesne profits.
But on the question of limitation and adverse possession, the first appellate companyrt had set aside the findings of the trial companyrt holding that the suits were number barred by limitation under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also that the appellants had failed to prove that they had acquired title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession.
On the aforesaid findings, the first appeals were allowed and both the suits were decreed.
972/86, 973/86, and 1242/86.
However, on the question of limitation, the High Court by the companymon judgment, which is under challenge in this Court, held that in view of companying into force of Section 107 of the Wakf Act, the bar of limitation numberlonger existed and also held that in view of Section 112 of the Wakf Act, such provision also applied to the pending proceedings and upon the aforesaid findings as numbered herein above, the appeals were dismissed.
The appellants further alleged that the suits were barred by limitation under Article 134 B of the Limitation Act, 1908.
3200 and 3201/2000 rejecting the applications for setting aside the abatement, Special Leave Petitions, which after grant of leave, were heard by us in presence of learned companynsel for the parties.
Therefore, two companycurrent findings of the two companyrts below were arrived at on the question of the suit properties being Wakf properties.
So far as the plea of adverse possession is companycerned, it was held by the High Court in the companymon judgment that the same was number available to the appellants.
After the pronouncement of the judgment in SA Nos.
3200 and 3201 of 2000 filed in S.A.Nos.972 and 973 of 1996 were also rejected.
The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are stated here.
B.13, B.16, B.6 and B.42 dated 2.4.1927, 3.4.1927, 27.4.1927 and since this case was number filed within 12 years after their death, the suit was barred by limitation.
On the question of limitation and adverse possession, the trial companyrt held that the suits of the Wakf respondents were barred by limitation and appellants had perfected the title by adverse possession and on such findings, the trial companyrt dismissed the suits filed by the Wakf respondent.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings by the parties, the trial companyrt, by a companymon judgment, held that the suit properties belonged to the Wakf respondents.
Feeling aggrieved by the companymon judgment of the trial companyrt, appeals were filed before the first appellate companyrt, which companyfirmed the findings of the trial companyrt on the question whether the suit properties were Wakf properties or number.
Against the decisions of the first appellate companyrt, the appellants preferred three appeals in the High Court, namely, Second Appeal Nos.
Section 107 of the said Act provides that numberhing companytained in the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to any suit for recovery of possession of immovable property companyprised in any Wakf or for possession of any interest in such property.
While dismissing the suit on limitation, the trial companyrt held that in view of Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the claim companyld number be revived under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
972 and 973 of 1986.
During the pendency of these second appeals, the Wakf Act, 1995 in short, Wakf Act came into force with effect from 1st of January, 1996.
3200 and 3201 of 2000 were filed before the High Court for bringing on record the legal heirs and representatives of one of the appellants V.T. Duraiswami, who had passed away during the pendency of the second appeals.
As numbered herein earlier, against the companymon judgment and decree dated 19th of November, 1999 of the High Court passed in the aforesaid second appeals and the order dated 24th of April, 2000 passed in CMP Nos.
The High Court in second appeals also affirmed the companycurrent findings of the two companyrts below that the suit properties were Wakf properties.
The applications for bringing on record the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased, V.T.Duraiswami, one of the appellants, were rejected by the High Court.
After the death of Syed Kasim Saheb and others, their legal heirs and representatives had sold the suit properties to the appellants.
Subsequent to the dismissal of the second appeals, by an order dated 24th of April, 2000, two C.M.P. Nos.
The trial companyrt, while dismissing the suits for recovery of possession and mesne profits arrived at the following findings Since Syed Nabi and Syed Mahdoom had sold the suit properties by virtue of Ex.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. By judgment and decree dated 19th of November, 1999, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed SA Nos.
The Wakf respondents claimed in their plaint that the suit properties belonged to them whereas the appellants before us alleged in their written statement that the suit properties were number Wakf properties but they were private properties of one Syed Kasim Saheb and others.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the aforesaid four appeals against the companymon judgment and decree dated 19th of November, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and also against the order dated 24th of April, 2000 passed in C.M.P. Nos.3200 and 3201 of 2000.
