Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 applies to pending proceedings and abrogates the application of the Limitation Act, and the alienees cannot plead adverse possession against the trust.

These three Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the trial Court in two suits namely, O.S. Nos. 449 and 451 of 1978 filed by S. Gori Thaikal Wakf, Vridachalam, before the District Munsif, Vridachalam. Both the suits were dismissed. A.S. Nos. 62 and 63 of 1984 were preferred before the Sub Court, Vridachalam, by the plaintiff. The appellate Court allowed both the appeals and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the said judgment, defendants 1 arid 2 in O.S. No. 449 of 1978 have filed Second Appeal No. 972 of 1986 while defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 451 of 1978 and fourth defendant in the same suit have filed Second Appeal No. 973 of 1986 and Second Appeal No. 1242 of 1986 respectively.

2. It is not necessary to deal with the mutual pleadings in both the suits having regard to the scope of the legal issue which is found to be sufficient for the disposal of all the three Second Appeals. It would be sufficient to point out that both the suits were filed by the plaintiff/Wakf seeking recovery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits from the respective defendants claiming that the suit properties belong to the Wakf. In both the suits, the defendants contended that the properties were not trust properties and they were only private properties of one Syed Kasim Saheb and others and after their death their legal heirs had sold the properties to the defendants who had purchased the same for valuable consideration. The suits were also barred by limitation not having been filed within the period of limitation under Article 96 of the Limitation Act after the appointment of Muthavalli and that they had also perfected title by adverse possession.

3. The trial Court in its common judgment held that the properties belong to the plaintiff/Wakf. The trial Court also held that the suit was barred by limitation as well as that the defendants have perfected title by adverse possession and hence dismissed both the suits. The appellate Court confirmed the finding that the property belongs to the plaintiff/Wakf, but set aside the findings relating to the issue of limitation and adverse possession and with the result the appeals were allowed and both the suits were decreed. Hence, these appeals by the defendants in the suit.

4. The finding that the properties in both the suits belong to the plaintiff/Wakf is a finding of fact rendered by both the Courts below concurrently on a very detailed analysis of the evidence and the appellants in these appeals not being able to point out any serious legal error or perversity in the said finding rendered by the Courts below, the said finding has to be confirmed. The main dispute which is raised before me relates to the question of limitation in filing the suit and the claim of adverse possession by the defendants. The trial Court held that after Arman Ali Shah, then Muthuvalli who died during the year 1922, no other person was appointed as Muthuvalli till 12.6.1996 when another Muthuvalli came to be appointed. The claim of the plaintiff that the suit having been filed within 12 years after the appointment of last Muthuvalli, the suit was filed within the period of limitation, was not acceptable to the trial Court. The trial Court on its interpretation of Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908 and Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and various rulings of the Courts on the said provision, rejected the contention of the plaintiff. But the appellate Court took the contrary view and held that the suits filed within 12 years of the appointment of last Muthuvalli were not barred by limitation. The appellate Court also held that alienations of the wakf properties were by persons who were holding properties in trust and therefore on its understanding of the scope of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, held that the alienations being bad in law, alienees cannot plead adverse possession against the trust. Before me also arguments were advanced by both sides on the