Eviction proceedings under the Wakf Act were barred by limitation; plaintiffs established ownership through valid purchase certificates despite defendants' Wakf claims lacking substantive evidence.

ORDER :

1. CRP (Wakf) No.333 of 2016 is preferred by the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.15 of 2012 and CRP(Wakf) No.186 of 2017 is preferred by the Kerala State Wakf Board, 2^nd defendant against the common judgment in the Suit.

2. Succinctly the facts of the present case are enumerated herein below:

One Seethimarakkarakath Alikoya was the owner of the plaint schedule property. In the year 1921, vide document No.770 registered at Kozhikode, Pathummai Umma and others executed a Karaima kachit in favour of Ali Koya with respect to a property having an extent of 12x10 kole. After obtaining the permission from the respective Municipality as per the order No.1591/1925, the aforementioned people had set up a house therein. In the year 1928, Pathummai Umma and others assigned their leasehold right over the property to Kappuveettil Kuttirayin by document No.510/1928. Thereafter, Kuttirayin executed a fresh lease deed in favour of Alikoya taking more property, as per document No.528/1928. However, in 1928, the area in the lease deed was shown more than 12x10 asarikole, i.e., as 16x14 Asarikole. Thereafter, Kuttirayin executed two mortgage deeds of the property in 1928 and 1939 and assigned leasehold rights to Aadiyeri Kanoth Madhavi in 1941. Subsequent to the death of Madhavi, her right devolved upon her seven children namely, Leela, Balakrishnan, Kunhiraman, Sreenivasan, Lalitha, Girija and Samidasan. All these seven persons assigned their leasehold right over the property to O.M.Subrahmania Chettiyar, S/o.Oggu Narasimha Chettiyar in the year 1948 as per document No.1057 of 1948 and thereafter, the release deed was renewed in 1951. Subrahmania Chettiyar continued to enjoy the possession of the property as a cultivating tenant. The Land Reforms Act, 1970 came into being and as per the provisions of the Act, gave certain right to the long and settled tenants who are entitled by making requisite applications. Accordingly an application was submitted to the concerned authority and Subrahmania Chettiyar successfully obtained the certificate of purchase as per O.A.No.2096 of 1971 from Land Tribunal, Kozhikode. In the aforementioned proceedings, the Manager of Jenmi namely Siyali Veettil Imbichayishabi was impleaded i.e, the landlord and obtained a purchase certificate dated 08.04.1974 having an extent of 14½ cents of land. Out of the aforementioned property, certain portion of the property was required for widening of the road. Later on, the house was dismantled in the remaining property having an extent of 9¼ cents of land and permission was applied for the construction of a new house, which was granted by the Kozhikode Corporation vide order dated 28.08.2003. The undivided ¼ share of the aforementioned property was sold to the respondent ie, Nedumpurath Pokker Haji and his son Ashraf as per document No.695/2003 of SRO Kozhikode, who later assigned their right over the property to the plaintiffs as per the assignment deed No.853/2004. Thereafter, Varikkodan Chekku Haji purchased the above property vide document No.183 of 2004. Remaining 2/4 right of the property was also executed in favour of the plaintiffs vide document No.575 of 2004. Thus, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 9¼ cents of land which was left out after some portion was acquired for the purpose of widening the road.

3. The defendants did not deny the execution of the release deed in 1921, but alleged that Seethi Alikoya had dedicated the property bearing 14½ cents of land to th