Wukf property cannot be validly alienated by managers, and a mutwaly's suit to protect the endowment is not time-barred.

Property dedicated to a Khankah was treated as Wukf property because the grants showed a clear religious and charitable appropriation, even without technical words of dedication. The managers had no power to convert the endowment into private property or to alienate it by sale or transfer, so the impugned conveyances were ineffective against the trust. A suit brought by a duly appointed mutwaly to protect the endowment was not barred by ordinary private limitation rules. The defendant could not rely on long possession or demand repayment of the purchase money as a condition for restoration, since the possession stemmed from an unlawful alienation of dedicated property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the villages granted for the Khankah constituted Wukf or appropriated property and were incapable of alienation by sale or transfer. (ii) Whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. (iii) Whether the defendant could resist restitution on the footing of the purchase money or possession.

Issue (i): Whether the villages granted for the Khankah constituted Wukf or appropriated property and were incapable of alienation by sale or transfer.

Analysis: The royal grants showed that the lands were dedicated to the support of the Khankah and its religious and charitable purposes. The absence of the technical word of dedication was not material where the tenor of the instruments and the long-recognised religious use made the endowment clear. Once the property was validly appropriated for such purposes, the persons in charge were only managers and had no authority to convert it into private property or to alienate it by conditional or absolute transfer. The attempted conveyances were therefore inconsistent with the nature of the endowment.

Conclusion: The property was Wukf property and was inalienable, so the transfers relied on by the defendant were invalid against the endowment.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The plaintiff did not sue as private heir asserting proprietary title, but as Mutwaly appointed by Government to superintend the endowment. His right to protect the Wukf property arose from that appointment, and until then he had no legal capacity or duty to sue on behalf of the endowment. In that setting, the ordinary twelve-year limitation applicable to private claims did not defeat a claim brought to protect a public charitable endowment on behalf of the Government's trust and superintendence.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the defendant could resist restitution on the footing of the purchase money or possession.

Analysis: Since the defendant's possession rested on an unlawful alienation of dedicated property, long possession did not validate the title. Nor could the plaintiff be compelled to repay the purchase money where the transaction itself was illegal and there was no basis to treat the plaintiff as personally liable for the amount advanced. The equitable consequence of the defendant's possession could not override the illegality of the transfer.

Conclusion: The defendant could not retain the property or insist on repayment as a condition of recovery.

Final Conclusion: The dedication of the lands was upheld, the suit was held maintainable, and the appellate decree in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed, leaving the defendant with no valid title under the impugned transfers.

Ratio Decidendi: Property dedicated to a religious or charitable purpose cannot be validly alienated by its manager, and a suit brought by a duly appointed mutwaly to protect such endowment is not defeated by ordinary private limitation rules.

---