REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4988-4991 OF 2000

T. Kaliamurthi & Anr.

…Appellants

Versus

Five Gori Thaikal Wakf & Ors.

. .Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. By judgment and decree dated 19^th 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 24^th 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 19^th

of November, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at

1

Madras and also against the order dated 24^th 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

2

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

3

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 af