Judgment

BACHAWAT, J. : This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of possession of five tiled rooms inside the compound of a dargah at Katalmandi, Hyderabad. The property belongs to Dargah Hazrat Habeeb Ali Shah Saheb. The dargah while in possession of the property was dispossessed by the defendants long ago. Counsel for the plaintiffs conceded before us that the dargah was dispossessed of the property on or about September 20, 1937, when the defendants filed objections in the course of certain proceedings for enrolment of the property as endowed property under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations. While the Hyderabad Limitation Act II of 1322 F was in force in Hyderabad, there was no limitation for a suit for recovery of a wakf properly. Section 29 (c) of the Act applied to suits relating to wakf. By virtue of S. 29 (c), a suit for recovery of a wakf property was outside the Act. On April 1, 1951, the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, came into force and extended the Indian limitation Act 1908 to Hyderabad, and the corresponding law in force in Hyderabad stood repealed. On February 3, 1956, the mutawalli of the dragah and the Board of Muslim Endowments Hyderabad, instituted the present suit for recovery of the property from the defendants. The suit was substantially a suit on behalf of the wakf who while in possession of the property had been dispossessed. On the assumption that the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 applies to the suit, prima facie the suit would be governed by Art. 142 of that Act and would be barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was so barred. On appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the suit was governed by the Hyderabad Limitation Act and was not barred by limitation. On this finding the High Court decreed the suit. Some of the defendants now appeal to this Court by special leave.

2. The High Court held that the application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 to the suit would bar and confiscate the existing cause of action for the recovery of the suit property, as the Part B States (Laws) Act while extending the Indian Limitation Act to Hyderabad did not allow a reasonable time to the plaintiffs for enforcing the existing cause of action and consequently the Indian Limitation Act could not affect then suit and the suit was governed by the Hyderabad Limitation Act. Now, the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 was passed on February 22, 1951. The Act came into force on April 1, 1951 by virtue of a notification of the Central Government, dated March 7, 1951 and published in the gazette on March 10, 1951. It extended to the Part B States the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as amended with the addition of S. 30 which is in these terms:-

"30. Provision for States for which the period prescribed is shorter than that prescribed by any law previously in force in a Part B State. - Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any suit for which the period of limitation prescribed by this Act is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by any law corresponding to this Act in force in a Part B State which is repealed by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 195l, may be instituted within the period of two years next after the coming into force of this Act in that Part B State or within the period prescribed for such suit by such corresponding law, whichever period expires first."

3. Section 30 should be construed liberally considering that it is intended to alleviate hardship consequential on the introduction of a shorter period of limitation. Ex facie, S. 30 applies to a suit for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian limitation Act, 1908 is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by the corresponding law in force in the Part B State. Now, the Hyderabad Limitation Act did not apply to a suit for recovery of possession of a wakf property. The result was that under the corresponding law in force in Hyderabad, there was no limitation for such a suit. In ot