The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Waqf Act 1995, the limitation period for recovery of Waqf property, and the concept of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. - This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 26.10.1999, in O.S. No.8 of 1985 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit for possession of plaint schedule mentioned property, for mesne profits of Rs.50,640/- over the plaint schedule property and for future profits against the defendants.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.8 of 1985, are as under:

The plaintiff Darga was founded by the Muslims of Sanivarapupet village that the plaint schedule property was endowed to the plaintiff-Darga about 2 centuries back for its upkeep and maintenance and to celebrate the annual Urusu that the Inam Commissioner also had confirmed the said Inam to the plaintiff-Darga on 01.05.1860 that the survey commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Waqf Act 1954 also held on 07.01.1957 that the plaint schedule property is a Waqf property that the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board published the plaint schedule property as Waqf property in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 19.04.1962 that the plaint schedule property became Waqf property by user also that Md.Sheriff and his sons Adam Sheriff and Mahaboob Sheriff were the share holders of the office-cum-Muthawallis of the plaintiff-Darga. The plaintiff further pleaded that it is learnt that Md.Shariff obtained a ryotwari patta in his name with respect to the plaint schedule property by making false and fraudulent representation in derogation of the Waqf that the said ryotwari patta is void and illegal under law that the above said Muthawallis sold item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to N.Challayya under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1960, who in his turn along with his son Ramarao and the above said Muthawalli sold away the same to the defendants 1 to 3 under a sale deed dated 16.07.1963. The 4th defendant is the sister of the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 3 are in possession of plaint schedule property. The 4th defendant has applied for layout of the said property that the above said Muthawallis had further sold item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to K.Achuta Ramayya on 12.12.1962 who in his turn gifted the same to V.Parijatham under a settlement deed dated 17.02.1965 that the said Parijatham in her turn sold the same to the 5th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1971 that infact the Muthawallis have no rights to make such alienations with respect to the plaint schedule property without the prior permission of the Court of Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board that there is no legal necessity to make such alienations of the same that out of the said Muthawallis, Md.Sheriff died in 1964 and Adam Sheriff died in 1978 that Mahaboob Sheriff left the village that item No.1 of the plaint schedule was yielding an income of Rs.5,000/- and from item No.2 it was Rs.2,000/- per acre per annum that after knowing about the alienations with respect to the plaint schedule property, 3 months prior to the suit, the plaintiff-Darga got issued a legal notice dated 25.12.1984 to the defendants 1 to 5 demanding them to deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to it. The defendants 1 to 5 got issued reply notices with false allegations that Md.Galib Baig who is the devotee of Saint Hajarat Jamalsha became the Muthawalli of the plaintiff-Darga in 1981 after Mahaboob Sheriff abandoned its management that the Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board accorded permission on 05.12.1984 to Md.Galib Baig to file a suit and that the plaintiff-Darga has filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property, past profits, mesne profits and for costs.

5. The first