Hon'ble CHATTERJEE,J.— By judgment and decree dated 19th of November, 1999, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed SA Nos. 972 and 973 of 1986. Subsequent to the dismissal of the second appeals, by an order dated 24th of April, 2000, two C.M.P. Nos. 3200 and 3201 of 2000 filed in S.A.Nos.972 and 973 of 1996 were also rejected.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the aforesaid four appeals against the common judgment and decree dated 19th of November, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and also against the order dated 24th of April, 2000 passed in C.M.P. Nos.3200 and 3201 of 2000. By the aforesaid common judgment, the High Court had dismissed three second appeals of the defendants/appellants and affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court which had set aside the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits filed at the instance of the plaintiffs/respondents. It may be kept on record that another Second Appeal No.1242 of 1986 was also dismissed by the High Court by the same judgment passed against which no SLP has been filed in this Court and, therefore, no reference is made to the same in this judgment.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are stated here.

4. Iynthukori Thaikkal Wakf (5 Kori Durga Wakf) (in short “the Wakf”) had instituted two suits in the Court of District Munsif, Vridachalam for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit properties as fully described in the plaint and for mesne profits. The Wakf/respondents claimed in their plaint that the suit properties belonged to them whereas the appellants before us alleged in their written statement that the suit properties were not Wakf properties but they were private properties of one Syed Kasim Saheb and others. After the death of Syed Kasim Saheb and others, their legal heirs and representatives had sold the suit properties to the appellants. The appellants further alleged that the suits were barred by limitation under Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908. An additional plea was also taken by the appellants that they had also perfected the title in respect of the suit properties by way of adverse possession. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings by the parties, the trial court, by a common judgment, held that the suit properties belonged to the Wakf/respondents. On the question of limitation and adverse possession, the trial court held that the suits of the Wakf/respondents were barred by limitation and appellants had perfected the title by adverse possession and on such findings, the trial court dismissed the suits filed by the Wakf/respondent. While dismissing the suit on limitation, the trial court held that in view of Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the claim could not be revived under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment of the trial court, appeals were filed before the first appellate court, which confirmed the findings of the trial court on the question whether the suit properties were Wakf properties or not. Therefore, two concurrent findings of the two courts below were arrived at on the question of the suit properties being Wakf properties. But on the question of limitation and adverse possession, the first appellate court had set aside the findings of the trial court holding that the suits were not barred by limitation under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also that the appellants had failed to prove that they had acquired title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession. On the aforesaid findings, the first appeals were allowed and both the suits were decreed. Against the decisions of the first appellate court, the appellants preferred three appeals in the High Court, namely, Second Appeal Nos. 972/86, 973/86, and 1242/86. During the pendency of these second appeals, the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, “Wakf Act”) came into force with effect from 1st of Januar