Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. So far as the appeal and cross-objections before us are concerned, the appearing respondents, namely respondents 12 and 13 and respondents 14 to 18, will get their respective costs from appellants, but the hearing fee on the total value of the appeal will be divided between the said two sets of respondents in the proportion of 2/3 and 1/3.

Guha, J.

15. I agree with my learned brother in the judgment delivered by him. I desire to add that in my judgment it cannot be held that their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have either explicitly or by implication said anything in the case of Vidya Varuthi Thirthaswamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 123, which might have the effect of overruling the previous decisions given by their Lordships, of which the case of Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu (1900) 23 Mad. 271 is typical and which directly bears upon the question of limitation raised in the present appeal. It also appears to me that in the cases cited in the argument before us by the learned advocate for the appellants the alienation of debuttar, or wakf properties was by the mohunt, shebait or mutwalli as such; in the present case the mutwalli Hayatubox Jamadar had on 23rd August 1897 alienated the properties in suit by a conveyance with definite recital that he was dealing with the properties in his own right as one of the heirs of Haji Alum Jamadar, the other heirs joining him in the transaction. This fact, to my mind, takes the present case out of the class of cases dealing with alienation by a mohunt, shebait, mutwalli as such, in regard to which there may be a seeming divergence of judicial opinion, as to the point of time when exactly adverse possession by the alienee could be said to have commenced. In the present case the date of alienation by Hayatubox Jamadar himself claiming adversely to the wakf must in my judgment be taken to be the date from which possession of the defendants became adverse. I would further desire to say in this connexion that in1 consonance with the decisions of the Judicial Committee it must be taken to be settled that a distinction exists so far as wrongful alienation of debuttar or wakf properties by way of lease and that by way of out and out sale as indicated in the case of Munindra Narain Roy v. Sarat Chandra A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 913.