Limitation, supersession of decrees, wakf validity, and jurisdictional nullity shaped recovery and title rights in this property dispute.

Mesne profits received more than three years before suit were treated as time-barred because limitation for profits of immovable property runs from receipt and is not suspended absent express statutory provision. Money paid under a decree could not be recovered unless that decree had been reversed or superseded; the later Privy Council order did not supersede the separate revenue decrees, so recovery failed. The later Privy Council decision was read as conclusively establishing the validity of the wakf in its entirety, overriding the earlier narrower view. A revenue court's title finding made without jurisdiction could not bind later civil proceedings, because an beyond jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot operate as res judicata or estoppel.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for mesne profits was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the revenue decrees under which money was paid were superseded by the later Privy Council order so as to permit recovery. (iii) Whether the later Privy Council decision concluded the validity and extent of the wakf so as to govern the parties' rights in the wakf property. (iv) Whether the revenue court's decision on title could operate as res judicata in the subsequent civil proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for mesne profits was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim was for profits received more than three years before suit. The governing provision treated a suit for profits of immovable property wrongfully received as subject to a three-year limitation from the time the profits were received. The Court held that limitation, once begun, could not be suspended unless the statute expressly so provided, and no such suspension applied here.

Conclusion: The claim for mesne profits was barred by limitation and the appeal on that issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the revenue decrees under which money was paid were superseded by the later Privy Council order so as to permit recovery.

Analysis: A money paid under decree can be recovered only if the decree has been reversed or superseded. The later Privy Council order dealt with the rights in the title and possession dispute before it, but did not expressly or by necessary implication deal with, or supersede, the separate revenue decrees for profits. Those decrees therefore continued to subsist, and the payments made under them could not be recovered in a fresh suit.

Conclusion: The revenue decrees were not superseded, and the plaintiff had no cause of action to recover the sums paid under them.

Issue (iii): Whether the later Privy Council decision concluded the validity and extent of the wakf so as to govern the parties' rights in the wakf property.

Analysis: Two earlier decisions had spoken differently on the wakf, but the later and superior decision of the Privy Council was held to prevail. The Court read that decision as conclusively determining that the wakf was valid in its entirety, and the earlier High Court view limiting it to one-third could not stand against it.

Conclusion: The Privy Council decision prevailed and the wakf was held valid as to the whole of the property comprised in it.

Issue (iv): Whether the revenue court's decision on title could operate as res judicata in the subsequent civil proceedings.

Analysis: The Revenue Court was required to refer a genuine dispute as to proprietary right to the competent Civil Court. By deciding that question itself, it acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Tenancy Act. A decision rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot operate as res judicata or estoppel in later proceedings.

Conclusion: The revenue court's decision on title did not bind the parties in the later civil suit.

Final Conclusion: The mesne-profits appeal failed, the money-recovery appeal failed, and the execution appeal succeeded, with the result that the final determination went partly in favour of each side on different connected matters, but the recovery claim was dismissed and the wakf objection was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Money paid under a decree can be recovered only when the decree has been reversed or expressly superseded, and a decision rendered by a court acting without jurisdiction cannot operate as res judicata.

---