LAW FOR ALL

Wakf Properties - Adverse Possession = (i) 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 ? (ii) 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 ? So far as question No.1 is concerned, that is to say, whether the suit properties were Wakf properties or not, we find that the courts below concurrently held that the suit properties were Wakf properties.- On the question of limitation and adverse possession, the trial court held that the suits of the Wakf/respondents were barred by limitation and appellants had perfected the title by adverse possession = whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply in this case or not. That is to say, it may appear that if we answer this question in the negative thereby holding that Section 112 is self contained, the appeal would fail because then the question of reviving a barred claim would not arise at all because Section 112 does not contemplate or provide for any such provision. However, if we answer this question in the affirmative, the inevitable result would be that the appeal would have to be allowed because on all other points, discussed herein earlier, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants have been accepted. However, in our view, the authorities relied upon by the respondents deal only with the question of repeal and savings but do not answer the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellants,;whether Section 107 can revive an extinguished right. We may note that the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao Ghatge and Another (supra) cannot be ignored. That decision was not a case of repeal and accordingly, there was no reference to Section 6 at all in that Act. Nevertheless, it was held in that case that a right extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be revived by Section 52A. Similarly, in the present case, we are of the opinion that applicability of Section 6 is inconsequential because admittedly, there was an extinguishment of rights under Section 28 and Section 107 cannot revive those extinguished rights. In view of the above discussions, we are, therefore, of the view that Section 107 cannot revive a barred claim or extinguished rights.