https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276722 Under the unamended Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Mahommedan wakf property did not fall within the exemption because the property was not vested in a trustee in the English law sense; the mutawalli or sajjadanashin was only an administrator. The 1929 deeming amendment could not apply retrospectively to a suit filed earlier, so limitation protection was unavailable. The defendants also failed to establish adverse possession, since they did not prove clear, continuous, public and hostile occupation for the full statutory period, and their earlier conduct was consistent with permissive possession rather than hostile title. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:11:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276722 Under the unamended Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Mahommedan wakf property did not fall within the exemption because the property was not vested in a trustee in the English law sense; the mutawalli or sajjadanashin was only an administrator. The 1929 deeming amendment could not apply retrospectively to a suit filed earlier, so limitation protection was unavailable. The defendants also failed to establish adverse possession, since they did not prove clear, continuous, public and hostile occupation for the full statutory period, and their earlier conduct was consistent with permissive possession rather than hostile title. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Dec 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276722