2008 (8) TMI 789 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the suit properties were originally Wakf Properties or alternatively whether they ceased to be Wakf properties as the defendants/appellants and their predecessors had perfected their title by way of adverse possession ? Whether the suits filed by the Wakf/respondents were barred by limitation and, if so, whether Section 107 of the Wakf Act could have the effect of reviving a barred claim ? Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply in this case or not? Whether Section 107 can revive an extinguished right? Held that - Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court passed in the aforesaid second appeals are set aside and the suits filed by the respondents are dismissed. Section 107 cannot revive a barred claim or extinguished rights.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit properties were originally Wakf Properties or whether they ceased to be Wakf properties as the defendants/appellants and their predecessors had perfected their title by way of adverse possession.
2. Whether the suits filed by the Wakf/respondents were barred by limitation and whether Section 107 of the Wakf Act could have the effect of reviving a barred claim.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Wakf Properties or Adverse Possession:
The courts below, including the trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court, all concurrently held that the suit properties were Wakf properties. This finding was not seriously challenged by the appellants. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not see any ground to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact. The trial court initially held that the suit properties belonged to the Wakf/respondents, and this was affirmed by the appellate courts.

2. Limitation and Revival of Barred Claims:
The central issue was whether the suits were barred by limitation and whether Section 107 of the Wakf Act could revive a barred claim. The trial court held that the suits were barred by limitation under Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that the appellants had perfected their title by adverse possession. The first appellate court, however, held that the suits were filed within 12 years of the appointment of the last Muthavalli, relying on Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and thus were not barred by limitation. The High Court did not decide whether Article 96 or Article 134-B applied but held that Section 107 of the Wakf Act, which came into force during the pendency of the appeals, removed the bar of limitation and applied to pending proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court was incorrect in applying Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable. The suits were filed long after the death of the Muthavalli and the transfer of properties in 1927, thus barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prevents the revival of claims already barred under the 1908 Act, was overlooked by the first appellate court.

The Supreme Court further examined whether Section 107 of the Wakf Act could revive a barred claim. It was determined that Section 107, which states that nothing in the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to suits for possession of Wakf properties, does not have retrospective effect and cannot revive claims already barred by the Limitation Act, 1908. The court emphasized that procedural laws, including limitation laws, are generally retrospective, but they cannot revive rights that have already been extinguished.

The court relied on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which states that a repeal shall not revive anything not in force at the time the repeal takes effect. The court held that the right of action, which was barred by limitation at the time the new act came into force, could not be revived by the change in law. The court cited precedents to support this view, including the principle that once a right is extinguished under the Limitation Act, it cannot be revived by subsequent legislation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the suits were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908, and that Section 107 of the Wakf Act could not revive the barred claims. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the High Court were set aside, and the suits filed by the respondents were dismissed. The Civil Misc. Petitions were also dismissed, and the appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.