Article 96 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit by the manager of a religious endowment for recovery of possession of property transferred by a previous manager, and the Wakf Board is a manager within the meaning of Article 96.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge of Cuddapah given in a S. No. 122/69 on 4. 8. 1970 whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs suit.

( 2 ) THE facts which gave rise to this appear are that the Wakf Board, Andhra pradesh instituted the suit for recovery of possession alleging inter alia that the properties covered by Title Deed No. 490 are endowed to Peerlu and as such they constitute Wakf property belonging to the institution of Peerlu (Ashurkhana ). It is further alleged that previously one Aggi Dastagiri Sab was the Mutwalli and manager of the said religious institution. The said Dastagiri Sab and his shareholders alienated items 1 and 2 viz. , No. Nos. 328/1 and 328/3 of Tappetla village to one Machireddi, Karnam of Tappetla, the 1st defendant, under a sale deed dated 1. 2. 1943. The said Manager and his co-sharers also sold item 3 i. e. , S. No. 453 of Tappetla village to the 2nd defendant under a sale deed dated 16. 10. 1946. It was alleged that the manager and his share-holders had no authority whatsoever to effect the sale in favour of the defendants. They are therefore illegal and void.

( 3 ) THE Wakf Board after a proper enquiry declared the suit properties to be Wakf properties under Section 5 of the wakf Board Act on 26. 3. 1964. as the defendant did not handover possession to the Wakf Board, the suit out of which the 2nd appeal arises was instituted on 14. 8. 1967.

( 4 ) THE defendants contended that the suit was time barred and that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. They also contended that the sales were effected to carry out the repairs of the Peerlu.

( 5 ) THE trial court, after a proper enquiry, held that the suit properties are Wakf Properties. It however found that the suit was barred by limitation and that the defendants have perfected their titles by adverse possession. The plaintiffs suit therefore for recovery of possession was held to be not maintainable.

( 6 ) THE Wakf Board carried the matter in appeal to the District Judge. The district Judge allowed the appeal and held that the properties are Wakf properties. He found that the suit was within time because Art. 96 of the Indian Limitation act, applies to the present suit. The learned District Judge did not deal with the question of perfection of title of the defendants by adverse possession.

( 7 ) IN this appeal, the principle contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the suit is barred by time because in his submission it is art. 144 of the Limitation act that applies to the suit and not article. 96

( 8 ) IN so far as the argument under section 3 of the Extension of Limitation Act 29 of 1959 is concerned, it was a common ground that that section would not apply because even according to that section the dispossession or discontinuation of possession must have occurred after 14. 8. 1947 and before 7/05/1954. It is only when dispossession or discontinuation of possession occurs between that period that the suit according to that provision can be filed at any time after 14. 8. 1947 but before 7. 5. 1954. Since in this case both the transfers were made earlier to 14. 8. 1947, the section would have no application whatsoever.

( 9 ) I have therefore consider whether Art. 96 applies to the present case as is held by the learned District Judge. Two contentions were advanced in order to show that the said Article is not applicable. It was first contended that the Mutwalli cannot be said to be a manager within the meaning of Article 96, I do not think the argument has any force. Art. 96 reads as under.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of suit Period of Time from which period Limitation begins to run -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------