1937 (2) TMI 12 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses time-barred mesne profits claim, validates wakf, grants possession of properties.

Muhammad Ubaid-ullah Khan Versus Muhammad Abdul Jalil Khan

The court dismissed the claim for mesne profits from 1916 to 1929 as time-barred under the Limitation Act. The claim for repayment of moneys wrongfully ... - Issues Involved:1. Claim for mesne profits (1916-1929) in village Chakhathal.2. Claim for repayment of moneys wrongfully compelled to pay.3. Validity of the wakf and its extent.4. Execution proceedings and objections regarding the extent of the wakf properties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Claim for Mesne Profits (1916-1929) in Village Chakhathal:The plaintiffs appealed against the dismissal of their claim for mesne profits from 1916 to 1929. The Civil Judge held that the claim was barred by limitation under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from when the profits were received. The plaintiffs argued that the limitation period should be suspended until the Privy Council's decision in 1929. However, the court ruled that once the limitation period starts, it cannot be suspended unless expressly provided by the Limitation Act, referencing Ram Charan Sahu v. Goga. As no mesne profits were claimed for the three years immediately preceding the suit, the claim was deemed time-barred, leading to the dismissal of First Appeal No. 191 of 1933.2. Claim for Repayment of Moneys Wrongfully Compelled to Pay:Abdul Jalil Khan sought repayment of Rs. 15,448-4-3, which he was compelled to pay under revenue court decrees before the Privy Council's 1929 decision. The Civil Judge decreed Rs. 10,745 in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the sums were obtained under valid, subsisting decrees that were never reversed or superseded. The court referenced Marriot v. Hampton and Shama Purshad Roy Chowdhury v. Hurro Purshad Roy Chowdhury, which establish that money recovered under a valid decree cannot be reclaimed unless the decree is reversed or superseded. The court concluded that the Privy Council's 1929 decision did not supersede the revenue court decrees, thus dismissing the plaintiff's claim and allowing First Appeal No. 140 of 1934.3. Validity of the Wakf and Its Extent:The dispute involved whether the wakf created by Abdul Latif Khan was valid in its entirety or only to the extent of one-third due to the doctrine of marzulmaut. The High Court's 1922 decision limited the wakf's validity to one-third, but the Privy Council's 1929 decision upheld the wakf without addressing this limitation. The court ruled that the Privy Council's decision, being from a superior court and later in time, prevails, thus validating the wakf in its entirety. The court also noted that the Assistant Collector's 1930 decision, which limited the wakf's validity, was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction to decide on proprietary rights, reinforcing the Privy Council's ruling.4. Execution Proceedings and Objections Regarding the Extent of the Wakf Properties:In execution proceedings, the decree-holder claimed possession of two-thirds of the wakf property, arguing based on the 1922 High Court decision. The defendant objected, citing the Privy Council's 1929 decision. The court upheld the defendant's objection, ruling that the Privy Council's decision validated the wakf in its entirety, thus entitling the defendant to possession of all the wakf properties. Consequently, Execution First Appeal No. 279 of 1934 was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the defendant's objection.Conclusion:- First Appeal No. 191 of 1933 was dismissed with costs.- First Appeal No. 140 of 1934 was allowed, the lower court's decree was set aside, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.- The plaintiff's cross-objection was dismissed with costs.- Execution First Appeal No. 279 of 1934 was allowed, the lower court's order was set aside, and the defendant's objection was allowed with costs.