Judgment.-All these second appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the learned District Munsif of Pattu-kottai in O.S. Nos. 784, 786, 788 and 790 of 1967 and the appeals arising therefrom on the file of the Court of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur. The appellant in all these second appeals is one and the same, namely, the State Wakf Board, Madras, represented by its Secretary. The suits were instituted for recovery of the properties involved in these suits. According to the appellant, the properties were wakf properties, they have been alienated by one Sheik Dawood illegally and unauthorisedly, and therefore the appellant was entitled to recover possession of those properties. The defence put forward by the various defendants are reflected in the following issues framed for trial by the trial Court:

(1) Whether the suit properties are part of the wakf properties belonging to Asar-pakkiri Thaikkal ?

(2) If the suit properties are wakf properties whether the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession ?

(3) Whether there is merely a charge for Rs. 27 every year on the income from all the wakf properties ?

(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable after the supersession of the State Wakf Board ?

(5) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

2. The learned District Munsif, who tried the suits, held that the suit properties were wakf properties and further held on issue No. 3 that it was not, merely a sum of Rs. 27 per year that was charged on the properties in question. He also held that the suits were maintainable. But he dismissed all the suits only on the ground that they were barred by limitation. On appeals preferred by the appellant herein, the learned District Judge of West Thanjavur, Thanjavur, confirmed the findings of the trial Court on all the points and dismissed the suits only on the ground of limitation again. It is against these judgments and decrees that the present second appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff in the suits.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below erred in holding that even on the application of Article 96 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the suits are barred by limitation. According to the Courts below, it is Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which has replaced Articles 134-B and 134-C of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 that applied to the case and even on the application of that Article, the suits were barred by limitation, because the vendor who sold the suit properties died in 1953 and the suits were instituted only in 1967 after the expiry of more than 12 years. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this conclusion of the Courts below is erroneous and for this purpose relies on two judgments of this Court and two judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Before I refer to the judgments relied on, it is easier to extract the relevant Articles of the Limitation Act applicable to the present case. Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908 related to recovery of possession of immovable property comprised in an endowment, while Article 134-C was concerned with recovery of possession of movable property comprised in an endowment. Since we are concerned in the present suits only with immovable properties, the relevant Article of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, is Article 134-B and the same reads as follows:

Description of suit. Period of limitation. Time from which period begins to run.

By the manager of a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been transferred by a previous manager for a valuable consideration.. Twelve years. The death, resignation or removal of the transferor.

It is Articles 134-B and 134-C that have been replaced by Article 96 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same is as follows:

4. The most important thing to not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document