2008 (8) TMI 881 - 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?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit properties were originally Wakf properties or ceased to be Wakf properties due to adverse possession.
2. Whether the suits filed by the Wakf/respondents were barred by limitation and whether Section 107 of the Wakf Act could revive a barred claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the suit properties were originally Wakf properties or ceased to be Wakf properties due to adverse possession.
The courts below, including the High Court, consistently held that the suit properties were Wakf properties. The appellants did not raise any serious challenge to this finding of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below on this issue.

Issue 2: Whether the suits filed by the Wakf/respondents 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 the appellants had perfected the title by adverse possession. The first appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the suits were filed within 12 years of the appointment of the last Muthavalli and were not barred by limitation under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, stating that Section 107 of the Wakf Act, which came into force during the pendency of the appeals, removed the bar of limitation for Wakf properties and applied to pending proceedings.

The Supreme Court analyzed whether Section 107 of the Wakf Act could apply retrospectively to revive a barred claim. The Court noted that Section 107 states that nothing in the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any Wakf. However, it emphasized that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unless explicitly stated. The Court further noted that procedural laws, including the law of limitation, are generally retrospective, but this does not apply if the right to sue was already barred under the previous law.

The Supreme Court concluded that the suits were barred under Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908, and Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prevents the revival of claims barred under the 1908 Act. The Court held that Section 107 of the Wakf Act could not revive the extinguished rights or barred claims. The Court relied on precedents that established that once the right to property is extinguished under the Limitation Act, it cannot be revived by subsequent legislation.

The Supreme Court also addressed the plea of adverse possession, noting that the appellants had been in possession of the properties since 1927 and had been recognized as absolute owners by the State Government, which granted them individual pattas. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession was valid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, dismissing the suits filed by the respondents. It held that Section 107 of the Wakf Act could not revive claims that were already barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The appeals were allowed, and the suits were dismissed, with no order as to costs.