LexT. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. versus FIVE GORI THAIKAL WAKF & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 759 WAKF & ORS. Act, the repeal of an enactment will not affect any right, privi- A lege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the re- pealed enactment, but this provision cannot be resorted to if a different intention appears - Repeal. Interpretation of statutes: Retrospective operation - Held: B ,;"'J No statute shall be construed to have a retrospective opera- tion until its language is such that would require such conc/u- sion. Respondent-Wakf instituted suits for recovery of pos- session and mesne profit. The appellants contested the c suit on the ground that the suit properties were private properties of one 'SKS' purchased by the appellants and; that suits were barred by limitation under Article 1348 of Limitation Act, 1908. Appellants also took an additional plea of adverse possession. D The trial Court 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 were barred by limitation under Article 1348 of Limitation Act, 1908 and the appellants had perfected the title by adverse E possession and on such findings, dismissed the suits. On appeal, the first appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the suit properties were Wakf prop- erty but on the question of limitation and adverse pos- session, set aside the finding of trial Court holding that F I ;. suits were not barred by limitation under Article 96 of Limi- tation Act, 1963 and also appellants failed to prove that they acquired title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession. On these findings, the first appeals were al- lowed and the suits were decreed. G Appellant filed appeals in the High Court, during pen- ....,, dency of which the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force w.e.f . 1st January, 1996. High Court dismissed the appeals hold- ing that in view of coming into force of s.107 of Wakf Act, the bar of limitation no longer existed; and that in view of H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 11 S.C.R. A s.112 of Wakf Act, such provision also applied to the pend- ing proceedings. Hence these appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The three courts below have recorded con- B current finding of fact that the suit properties were Wakf properties, and nothing has been brought before this -,....,.._ Court to show that the said findings of fact were either perverse or arbitrary. In the absence of any serious chal- lenge on this count, there is no ground to interfere with c such concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. [Paras 4,5] [767-G-H; 768-8] . 2.1. The first appellate court was not justified in hold- ing th~t Jhe suits were filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963. D The trial court correctly held that Article 1348 of the LimiM tation Act, 1908 would apply and therefore the suit was barred by limitation. S.31 of the Limitation Act, 1963 pro- vldes that nothing in the Limitation Act, 1963 shall enable any suit, appeal or application to be instituted, provided E or made, for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908 expired before the commencement of the 1963 Act. s.31 of the 1963 Act assumes great impor- tance which was completely overlooked by the first ap- pellate court.Admittedly, the suits were filed long after the F death of the Muthavalli and the suit properties were trans- ferred as far back as in 1927, therefore, the suits were ~ \ barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The period of limi- tation prescribed under the 1908 Act had already expired before the commencement of the 1963 Act and, therefore, G in view of the clear mandate of s.31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, suits could not have been instituted by taking the plea that the same was within the limitation under the 1963 Act. [Para 19] [780-G-H; 781-A-8] ~ C. VPurushotham \/. Chinna Jeevangar Mutt Tirupati AiR H (1975) AP 153; The Special Officer for Wakfs, Madras v. T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 761 WAKF & ORS. Subramanyam & Ors. (1976) Vol.89 Law Weekly 467; A C.Beepathuma & Ors.· v. Velasari Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya & Ors. AIR (1965) SC 241 - referred to. 2.2. S.6 of the General Clauses Act clearly provides that unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall B not revive anything not in force or existing at the time
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.