LexWAKF BOARD ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY versus BIRADA VOLURAMANA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B W AKF BOARD ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY v. BIRADA VOLU RAMANA REDDY AUGUST 19, 1999 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Muslim Law-Wakfs-Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959-Sections 2; 3-Provision for extension of period of limitation for C recovery of possession of immovable property-Applicability to-Held, the extended period of limitation is available where suit property belongs to a public Wakf-Possession of the land sought by the appellant being a service Imam land granted to the Paish Imam for performing services as Paish Imam at the Mosque could not be treated to be a public Waif-Extension of time D of limitation, held, not available to the appel/ant-Wakf Act, 1954-Section 3 (I). Limitation: limitation Act, 1963-Article 96-Limitation Act, 1908-Article 1348 in pari materia with slight modification with Article 96-Period of limitation E under-Applicability of -Held, applicable where the suit pertains to recovery of possession of property alienated by the previous manager-Alienation by the Paish Imam in the present case could not be said to be alienation by previous manager of the Mosque-Suit filed by the appellant barred by limitation. F Wakf Act, 1954-Section 66G-Period of limitation under, held, not available to the appellant for getting the extension of period of limitation as the present suit was filed prior to its enactment. A certain piece of land was granted to the Paish Imam for rendering G prayers at the Mosque. The said land was sold by the Paish Imam of the Mosque to Non 22-4-1952 who in turn sold the land to Mon 4-7-1962. M further sold the land to his son Jon 29-3-1966 who then sold the said land to the present respondent/defendant for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- on 20-8-1971. H The appellant-Board filed a suit for possession of the said land on 17- 630 ·. SECRETARY WAKFBOARDA.P. v. B.R. REDDY 631 1-1973 before District Judge which was allowed. However, in appeal, the A·. High Court dismissed the said suit. Hence, the present appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the High Court was in error in taking the view that the suit was barred by limitation. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on Section 3 of the Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959, Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 B and Section 66G of the Wakf Act, 1954. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. On the express language of definition of Public Wakf as C found in Section 2 of the Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959 read with Section 3 thereof, the conclusion becomes inevitable that extension of time would not be available to the appellant for challenging the alienations in question. A mere look at section 3 of the Extension Act shows that it would be of any help if it is found that the possession of the land which was sought from the defendant belonged to a Public Wakf. It is obvious that suit property D even if a Wakf as per Wakf Act, 1954 was not within the sNeep of the definition of a "Public Wakf' as per the Extension Act wherein service grants are not treated to be Public Wakf. (634-C; 635-C, D; 635-B-C) 1.2. Twelve years period under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 E may be available for filing suit for possession of movable or immovable property comprised in the endowment from the date of death, resignation or removal of the transferor or the date of appointment of the plaintiff as manager of the endowment, whichever is later provided the plaintiff challenges alienation by previous manager for valuable consideration. The present appellant Board got constituted when the Board came into existence on 4- F 3-1961 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Even ifthat is so, and 12 years period is counted from that date, the nature of the suit must be such that the plaintiff therein must seek to recover possession of the property alienated by the previous manager. Alienation by the Paish Imam in 1952 cannot be said to be alienation by previous manager of the Mosque for valuable G consideration. Therefore, neither Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 nor Article 134B of the earlier Limitation Act, 1908, which is pari materia with slight modification with Article 96~ can be of any assistance to the appellant. The requirement of both these Articles is that the impugned alienation must be effected by the previous manager. The inevitable result is that the suit fil
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.