IMPORTANT POINT
1. Service Inam is not public wakf within meaning of public wakf (Extention of Limitation) Act; unless a property is public wakf benefit of Section 3 of Extention Act is not available.
2. Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable t recovery of property alienated by a Paish Inam, since he cannot be considered as a previous manager of wakf.
3. Provisions of Section 66G of the Wakf Act, 1954 are not applicable to ssuit filed prior to inpertion of Section 66 G into the Act.

Headnote:Public Wakfs (Extention of Limitation) Act, 1959-Section 2 and 3 read with Section 3 and 66. G of wadf Act, 1954 - Extention of period of limitation for suits to recover possession of immovable property-Service inam land-Cannot be treated to be public wakf-Extention Act requires property to be of a public wakf and not mere wakf before Section 3 can be pressed is service-Paish Inam could not be considered to be previous manager of wadf so as to attract Article 96 of the Limitation Act.
       Held : A mere look at Section 3 of the Extension Act shows that it would be of any help if it is found that the possession of the land which was sought from the defendant belonged to a public wakf. The term public wakf is defined in Section 2 of the said Act to mean permanent dedication by a person professing Islam of any immovable property for any purpose recognised by Muslim Law as a public purpose of a pious, religious or charitable nature. The Extension Act required the property to be of a public wakf and not a mere wakf before Section 3 thereof can be pressed in service for extending the period of limitation. Consequently, on the express language of definition of public wakf as found in Section 2 of the Extension Act read with Section 3 thereof, the conclusion becomes inevitable that the extension of time would not be available to the appellant for challenging the alienations of service inam by Paish Inam in questions. (Paras 6 & 7)
       It cannot be disputed that the land in question which was sold by the Paish Imam, Ghous Saheb in 1952 was service Imam land granted to him for performing services as Paish Imam at the Mosque. It was not directly dedicated to the Mosque. Therefore, as per the definition of Public Wakf the suit land bing a service grant cannot be treated to be a public wakf. Further the definition shows of Section 3 of the Wakf Act, 1954 that at least from 1964 when sub-clause (ii) was added to the definition in Section 3(1) thereof, grants including mashrut-ul-khidmat were also to be treated as part of wakf. Apart from the question whether 1954 Act definition of wakf can be read with the definition of public wakf under the Extension Act, in 1952 when ther first alienation by the Paish Imam took place even this definition was not available to cover the said transaction. But even proceeding on the basis that on the date of the suit, the definition of Wakf as per Wakf Act, 1954 was available for being pressed into service, it only treated mashrut-ul-khidmat, i.e. grant for rendering service to be Wakf. It is obvious that suit property even if a wakf as per Wakf Act, 1954 was not within the sweep of the definition of a public wakf as per the Extension Act wherein service grants are not treated to be public wakf. (Paras 6 & 7)
       12 years period prescribed in Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be available from 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 provided the plaintiff challenges alienation by previous manager for valuable consideration. The appellant was right when he contended that the present appellant Board got constituted when the Board came into existence on 4.3.1961 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Even if that is so, and 12 years period is counted from that date, the nature of the suit must be such that the plaintiff therein must seek to recover possession of the property alienated by the previous manager such as Mutuwalli or Sajjada Nashin. So far as Ghous Saheb was concerned, he was never the previous manager of the Mosque. He was merely a Paish Imam who could not be considered to be the previous manager. Hence alienation by him in 1952 cannot be said to be alienation by previous manager of the Mosque for valuable consideration. Therefore, Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 also cannot be of any assistance to the appellant. (Para 8)
       Sections 66-D to 66-H of the Wakf Act, 1954 were brought on the statute of Wakf Act, 1954 by amending Act 69 of 1984. Since the present suit was filed in 1973 the said provision was not available to the appellant for getting the extension of period of limitation. Consequently, even this section can be of no avail to learned counsel for the appellant. (Para 9)
       (ii) Walf Act, 1954-Section 3 read with Sections 2 and 3 of Public Wakf (Extention of Limitation) Act, 1959-Public wakf-Meaning of-Service inam,-Whether amounts to public wakf. (Para 7)
       (iii) Walf Act, 1954-Section 66G-Recovery of wakf property-Limitation - Alienation effected prior to insertion of Section 66 G-Suit also filed prior to insertion of Section 66G-Benefit of Section 66G not available to plaintiff. (Para 9).
       (iv) Limitation Act, 1963-Art. 96-Suit for recovery of property alienated by paish Inam-Pasih Inam could not be considered as previous manager of wakf-Article 96 not attracted. (Para 8).

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Wakf Board Andhra Pradesh, the appellant before us has brought in challenge the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowing the appeal of the respondent-defendant and dismissing the suit of the appellant-Wakf Board for possession of the suit property.

2. The suit property consists of 48 1/2 cents of land situated in Nellore Town in Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant-Board as plaintiff filed a suit on 17.1.1973 in the Court of learned District Judge, Nellore. The appellant s case in brief was that the suit property is wakf and is an Imam land granted to the Paish Imam for rendering prayers at the Mosque commonly known as Abbas Ali Khan Mosque or Badruddin Ali Khan Mosque or Mustafa Ali Khan Mosque located in Big Bazar of Nellore Town. That the said land was sold by the then Paish Imam of the Mosque, one Ghous Saheb to one Noor Mohammed on 24.4.1952. Obviously, Noor Mohammed came in possession of the land in question from that date. The said Noor Mohammed sold the very same land to one Mathew on 4.7.1962. Mathew in his turn sold the property to his son, Jacob on 29.3.1966 and Jacob then sold the said property to the present respondent-defendant for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- on 20.8.1971. The appellant Board challenged the said alienations by filing the aforesaid suit.

3. Amongst others, one of the defences put forward by the respondent was that the suit was barred by limitation. Learned trial Judge took the view that the suit land was service Imam land alienated by Ghous Saheb who was Paish Imam of the Mosque. He could be treated to be a person who had illegally disposed of the Wakf property. Suit filed by the plaintiff Board for possession could be said to be within time in the light of Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Section 3 of the Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Extension Act ). Consequently, the solitary defence of the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation and the defendant was in adverse possession was negatived and the decree for possession was passed against the respondent. The respondent carried the matter in appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned judgment took the view that the suit was barred by limitation and consequently, the appeal was alloed and the suit was dismissed. That is how the appellant-Board is before us in the present appeal on obtaining special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

4. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court was in error in taking the view that the suit was barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he in the first instance invited our attention of the Extension Act. Section 3 of the said Act reads as under:

"3. Extension of period of limition in certain cases for suits to recover possession of immovable property forming part of public wakfs - Where a person entitled to institute a suit of the description referred to in Art. 142 or Art. 144 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, for possession of any immovable property forming part of a public wakf or any interest therein has been dispossessed, or has discontinued the possession, at any time after the 14th day of August, 1946, and before the 7the day of May, 1954, or, as the case may be, the possession of teh defendant in such a suit has become adverse to such person at any time during the said period, then notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, the period of limitation in respect of such a suit shall extend up to the 31st day of December, 1970."

5. In its application in the State of Andhra Pradesh, by the State amendment, the period was extended from time to time and by A.P. Act 10 of 1980, S. 2 the said period was further extended with effect from 31.12.1979 to 31.12.1981. It is not in dispute between the parties that at the rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document