SYED YOUSUF YARKHAN & ORS. versus SYED MOHAMMED YARKHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 04-01-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'
SYED YOUSUF Y\RKHAN & ORS. 
\', 
SYED MOHAMMED YARKHAN & ORS. 
January 4, 1967 
(K. N. WANCHOO, R.S. BACHAWAT AND 
J. M. SHELAT, JJ.j 
Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951-Indum Vmitation Act, 1908 txtend· 
~d to Hyderabad-Hyderabad Act II of Fl322 repealed-Possession of 
muslim wakf property situated in Hyderabad lost 
in 
1937-Suit for 
recovery filed in 1956-Suit whether fi/Rd wit/Jin 
time-Indian Act or 
Hyderabad Act to apply-Effect of Indian Limitation Ac•, .r. 30. 
The Dargah Hazarat Habeeb Ali Shah Saheb, a muslim wakf had 
certain property in Hyderabad of which it was dispossessed in 1937. The 
Hyderabad Limitation Act 11 of 1322F did n.ot apply to wakf properties 
and thus there was no limitation under it for a suit for recovery of such 
property. 
On April 1, 1951 the Part B States (laws) Act, 1951 came 
into force and extend< d the Indian Limitation Act. 1908 to Hyderabad 
and the corresponding law in Hyderabad accordingly stood repealed. By 
s. 30 the Indian Act laid down that any suit for which the period of 
limitation prescribed under the Indian Act, was shorter than that prescrib-
ed in the State Act could be instituted "within the period of two years 
next after the coming into force of this Act in that Pan B State or within 
the period .Prescribed for such suit by such corresponding law, whichever 
period expires first." 
Jn 1956 the mutawalli of the aforesaid Dargah 
and the Board of Muslim Endowmenli, Hyderabad filed the present suit 
for recovery of the wakf property. The trial court, on the footing that 
the Indian Limitation Act applied, dismi~sed the suit as time barred under 
Art. 142. The High Court however held that the application of the 
Indian Limitation Act, I 908 to the suit would bar and confiscate the 
existing cause of action for the recovery of the suit property, as the P&rt 
B States (Laws) Act while ••tending the Indian Limitation Act to Hydera-
had did not allow a reasonable 
time to the plaintiffs for 
enforcing 
the existing cause of action and consequently the Indian Limitation Act 
could not affect the suit and the suit was governed by the Hyderabad 
Limitation Act. 
Some of the defendants appealed to this Court. 
HELD : The trial court had rightly held the suit to be time-barred. 
(i) The ••tension of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 to Hyderabad 
artd t'te consequential change in law prescribing shorter period of limita· 
tion did not confisc.1te the existing cause of actron and must be regarded 
as an alteration in the Jaw of procedure for its enforcement 
Therefore 
the normal rule that the law of limitation applicable to the suit is 1he 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
law in furce at the date of the inst'tution of the suit must apply. (321 C-DJ 
G 
The period of limitation for the suit prescribed by the Indian Limita• 
tion Act was shorter than the period prescribed by the Hydcrnbad Act. 
Therefore s. 30 of the Indian Act enabled the plaintiffs to institute th: 
suit within a period of two years after April I. I951. The suit not 
having been instituted within that period the r!aintiffs could not avail 
themselves of the benefit of s. 30. [321 DJ 
(ii) The Bo.rd of Muslim Endowments was not an agent of the State 
Government by virtue of any provr.iion of the Muslim Wakf Act, I 954 
and a suit instituted by it for the recovery of wakf property was not a 
318 
H 
I
SYED YOUSUF v. SYED MOHAMMED (Bachawat, J.) 
319 
A 
suit by or on behalf of the State Government to which Art. 149 of the 
Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable. [322 C] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
Tamlin v. Hannafored. (1949)2 A.E.R. 327, and State , 
0•"ng 
Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, A.l.R. 1963 S.C. 
811, referred to. 
Since the passing of the Religious Endowments Act, 1963 the Muta-
walli eannot be regarded as a proeurator of the Government. A suit 
by him for the recovery of wakf property cannot be regarded as a suit 
on its behalf, [322, E-FJ 
Jewan Doss Sahoo v. Shah Kubeer.o<xl-Deen, 2 Moo. I.A. 390 Shaikh 
Laul Mohomed v. Lalla Bri/ Kishore, 17 Weekly Refnrter (Sutherland) 
430 and Beharl Lal & Sons. v. Muhamad Muttaki, .L.R. 20 All. 482, 
referred to. 
On his appointment the Mutawalli acquires no new right of suit and 
his appointment does not give him a fresb 1tarting point .of limitation for 
the recovery of the property. [322 F-0) 
(iii) The contention that as limitation did not run under the Hydera-
bad Limitation Act, the date when the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 came 
into force in Hyderaba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.