Holding

Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 does not have retrospective effect and cannot revive a claim barred by limitation; the suits are barred under Article 134‑B of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Summary

The Wakf instituted suits for recovery of possession of certain properties, which the appellants claimed were private and barred by limitation under Article 134‑B of the Limitation Act, 1908, also pleading adverse possession. The trial court held the properties were Wakf property and barred by limitation; the first appellate court reversed the limitation finding, applying Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court, relying on the Wakf Act, 1995, held that Section 107 removed the limitation bar and applied to pending proceedings. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 107 has retrospective effect and whether a claim barred under the 1908 Act can be revived. It held that Section 107 is not retrospective, that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and Section 112 of the Wakf Act save existing rights, and that the suits were barred under Article 134‑B of the 1908 Act. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the Wakf’s suits dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability and retrospective operation of Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 to pending suits.
Whether the suits filed by the Wakf are barred by limitation under Article 134‑B of the Limitation Act, 1908 or Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The effect of Section 112 of the Wakf Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act on reviving extinguished rights.
Whether the appellants could claim title by adverse possession over the disputed properties.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Wakf propertyLimitation ActSection 107Retrospective effectGeneral Clauses ActStatutory repealAdverse possessionStatutory interpretation

Judgment

T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 759
WAKF & ORS.

Act, the repeal of an enactment will not affect any right, privi- A
lege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the re-
pealed enactment, but this provision cannot be resorted to if a
different intention appears - Repeal.
Interpretation of statutes: Retrospective operation - Held:
,;"'J No statute shall be construed to have a retrospective opera- B
tion until its language is such that would require such conc/u-
sion.
Respondent-Wakf instituted suits for recovery of pos-
session and mesne profit. The appellants contested the c
suit on the ground that the suit properties were private
properties of one 'SKS' purchased by the appellants and;
that suits were barred by limitation under Article 1348 of
Limitation Act, 1908. Appellants also took an additional
plea of adverse possession.
D
The trial Court held that the suit properties belonged
to the wakf/respondents. On the question of limitation, and
adverse possession, the trial Court held that the suits were
barred by limitation under Article 1348 of Limitation Act,
1908 and the appellants had perfected the title by adverse E
possession and on such findings, dismissed the suits.
On appeal, the first appellate Court confirmed the finding
of the trial Court that the suit properties were Wakf prop-
erty but on the question of limitation and adverse pos-
session, set aside the finding of trial Court holding that F
I ;. suits were not barred by limitation under Article 96 of Limi-
tation Act, 1963 and also appellants failed to prove that
they acquired title to the suit properties by way of adverse
possession. On these findings, the first appeals were al-
lowed and the suits were decreed.
G
Appellant filed appeals in the High Court, during pen-
....,, dency of which the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force w.e.f.
1st January, 1996. High Court dismissed the appeals hold-
ing that in view of coming into force of s.107 of Wakf Act,
the bar of limitation no longer existed; and that in view of H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 11 S.C.R.

A s.112 of Wakf Act, such provision also applied to the pend-
ing proceedings. Hence these appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The three courts below have recorded con-
B current finding of fact that the suit properties were Wakf
-,....,.._
properties, and nothing has been brought before this
Court to show that the said findings of fact were either
perverse or arbitrary. In the absence of any serious chal-
lenge on this count, there is no ground to interfere with
c such concurrent findings of fact of the courts below.
[Paras 4,5] [767-G-H; 768-8]
. 2.1. The first appellate court was not justified in hold-
ing th~t Jhe suits were filed within the period of limitation
as prescribed under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
D The trial court correctly held that Article 1348 of the LimiM
tation Act, 1908 would apply and therefore the suit was
barred by limitation. S.31 of the Limitation Act, 1963 pro-
vldes that nothing in the Limitation Act, 1963 shall enable
any suit, appeal or application to be instituted, provided
E or made, for which the period of limitation prescribed by
the Limitation Act, 1908 expired before the commencement
of the 1963 Act. s.31 of the 1963 Act assumes great impor-
tance which was completely overlooked by the first ap-
pellate court.Admittedly, the suits were filed long after the
F death of the Muthavalli and the suit properties were trans-
ferred as far back as in 1927, therefore, the suits were ~ \
barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The period of limi-
tation prescribed under the 1908 Act had already expired
before the commencement of the 1963 Act and, therefore,
in view of the clear mandate of s.31 of the Limitation Act,
G
1963, suits could not have been instituted by taking the
plea that the same was within the limitation under the 1963
Act. [Para 19] [780-G-H; 781-A-8] ~

C. VPurushotham \/. Chinna Jeevangar Mutt Tirupati AiR
H (1975) AP 153; The Special Officer for Wakfs, Madras v.
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 761
WAKF & ORS.

Subramanyam & Ors. (1976) Vol.89 Law Weekly 467; A
C.Beepathuma & Ors.· v. Velasari Shankaranarayana
Kadambolithaya & Ors. AIR (1965) SC 241 - referred to.
2.2. S.6 of the General Clauses Act clearly provides
that unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall
not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at B
,., ...,.
.
which the repeal takes effect, or affects the previous op-
eration of any enactment so repealed or anything duly
done or suffered thereunder, or affect any ,right, privilege,
obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred un-
der any enactment so repealed. Thus, the right of action, c
which is barred by limitation at the time when the new act
comes into force, c.annot be revived by the change in the
law subsequently. [Paras 22,23] [782-F-H; 783-A]
Ram Murthi & Ors. v. Puran Singh Sia Attra Singh & Anr.
D
AIR (1963) Punjab 393 - referred to.
2.3. Sub-section (1) of s.112of1995 Act repeals Wakf
Act, 1954 and the Wakf Amendment Act, 1984. Sub-sec-
tion (2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal, any-
thing done or any action taken under the said Acts shall E
be deemed to have been done or taken under the corre-
sponding provisions of this Act. Sub-section (2) is the
saving clause and provides validity to the actions taken
under the repealed Act. [Para 24] [783-D-E]
2.4. S.112of1995 Act is in conformity with s.6 of the F
I
• General Clause Act which also provides that a repeal shall
not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability ac-
quired or incurred under the repealed enactment unless
a contrary intention appears. Thus under s.6 of the Gen-
eral Clauses Act and s.112 of 1995 Act, prior operation of G
the repealed enactment or the legal proceedings or rem-
edies instituted, continued or enforced etc. are saved.
..,. Thus on this ground, the High Court was not justified in
relying on s.112of1995 Act to hold tha~ the Act has retro-
spective effect. [Para 24] [785-D-F] H
I
f-
>-

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
r
y
A C. Beepathuma & Ors. v. Velasari Shankaranarayana
Kadambolithaya & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 241; Mst.Rafiquennessa
v. Lal Bahadur Chetri (since deceased) and his LRs. & Ors.
AIR (1964) SC 1511; Mohd. Idris & Ors. v. Sat Narain & Ors.
AIR (1966) SC 1499; Qudratullah v. Municipal Board (1974)
8 1 SCC 202 - Distinguished.
·-re-...
2.5. S:107 of 1995 Act provides that nothing in the
Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to any suit for posses-
sion of immovable property, comprised in any Wakf or for
any interest in such property. Therefore, for the applica-
c tion of s.107of1995 Act, on 1st of January, 1996, ·the prop-
erty must be comprised in the Wakf or the Wakf must have
some interest in such properties. If however, the right to
property stands extinguished, then s.107 cannot apply.
There is no specific provision which stipulates that s.107
D has any retrospective effect. It is well settled that no stat-
ute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation
until its language is such that would require such con-
clusion. The exception to this rule is enactments dealing
with procedure. This would mean that the law of limita;.
E tion, being a procedural law, is retrospective in operation
in the sense that it will also apply to proceedings pend-
ing at the time of the enactment as also to proceedings
commenced thereafter, notwithstanding that the cause of
action may have arisen before the new provisions came
F into force. However, there is an important exception to
this rule also. Where the right of suit is barred under the
law of limitation in forc.e before the new provision came
-4··.
into operation and a vested right has accrued to another,
the new provision cannot revive the barred right or take
away the accrued vested right. In the instant case, any
G
right which the Wakf had over the property stood extin-
guished under the Limitation Act, 1908. When the right
stood extinguished, s.107 cannot have the effect of reviv- ~
'
ing the extinguished right/claim. [Paras 22, 24, 27, 28, 29]
[782-B; 785-H; 786-A-B, 783-C-F]
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 763
WAKF & ORS.

Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao Ghatge and Anr v. Baburao A
Bala Yadav (Dead) By Lrs. (1978) 1 SCC 669; Karnataka Steel
& Wire Products and Ors. v. Kohinoor Rolling Shutters & Engg.
Works and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 76 - referred to.
2.6. Once it is held that the suit tor possession of the
suit properties filed at the instance of the Wakfwere barred 8
under the Limitation Act, 1908, the necessary corollary
would be to hold that the right of the Wakf to the suit prop-
erties stood extinguished in view of s.27 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 and, therefore, when s.107 came into force, it
could not revive the extinguished rights. [Para 30] [788- C
B-0]
Sree Bank Ltd. v. Sarkar Dutt Roy & Co. (1965) 3 SCR
708; Dhannalal v. D.PVijayvargiya & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 652;
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. ·C. Padma & Anr (2003) 7
0
sec 713;. s. Gopal Reddy v. State of AP (1996) 4 sec 596 -
held inapplicable.
Smt. Dayawati & Anr v. lnderjit & Ors. (1966) 3 SCR 275
- distinguished.
Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC E
353; Mis. Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr v. The
Employees State Insurance Corporation (1971) 2 SCC 860;
Indira Sohan Lal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi and
Ors. AIR (1956) SC 77 - referred to.
F
Case Law Reference
AIR (1975) AP 153 referred to Para 15
(1976) Vol.89 Law Weekly 467 referred to Para 15
AIR (1963) Punjab 393 referred to Para 23 G
AIR (1964) SC 1511 Distinguished Para 26
,.., ..
AIR (1965) SC 241 referred to Para 26
AIR 1965 SC 241 Distinguished Para 26
H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A AlR (1966}·SC 1499 Distinguished Para 26
-(1974) 1 sec 202 · Distinguished Para 26
(1978) 1 sec 669 referred to Para 27
(2003) 1 sec 76 referred to Para 28
B .(200~) ·1_sec 76 referred ,to Para 29
. (2006) 5 sec 353 referred to Para .29
(1971) 2 sec aso referred to Para 30
(1965) 3 SCR 708 held inapplicable Para 30
c (1996) 4 sec .596 held inapplicable Para 30
(1996) 4 sec 652 held inapplicable Para 30
-(2003) 7 SCC 713 - held inapplicable Para 30
. .GIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
D 4988-4991 of 2000
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1:999_&
24.4.2000 of th_e High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A.
Nos. 972 & 973of1986 in C.M.P. Nos. 3200 & 3201 of 2000 in
E S.A. Nos. 972 & 973 of 1986 respectively. ;-

K.V. Viswanathan, K.V. Venkataraman, M. Shoeb Alam,
Rajeev Kr. Singh and K.R. Nambiar for the Appellants.
J.M. Khanna, T.N. Bhat, Shefali Sethi, Dhruv Mehta,
Harshwardhan Jha and Yashraj Singh Deorn (for Mis. K.L Mehta
F & Co.) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by •
'~' -::- • J • ~ .... ~ . ' - • ' ....

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. By judgment and decree
datecf1·9ih of November, 1999, the High Court o( Judicature at
G Madra_s dismissed SA Nos. 972 and 973 of 1986. Subsequent
to the dismissal of the second appeals, by an order dated 241h
of Api-lr; 2000, two C.M.P. Nos. 3200 and 3:201 0(2000 fi!ed in
S.~.Nos.972 and 973 of.1996 were also rejected. -x--

- .2.-:Feeling aggrieved. the appellants have filed the afore-
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 765
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

said four appeals against the common judgment and decree A
dated 19th of November, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature
at Madras and also against the order dated 24th of April, 2000
passed in C.M.P. Nos.3200 and 3201 of 2000. By the afore-
said common judgment, the High Court had dismissed three
second appeals of the defendants/appellants and affirmed the B
.. '"t' judgment of the first appellate court which had set aside the
judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit for recovery of
possession and mesne profits filed at the instance of the plain-
tiffs/respondents. It may be kept on record that another Second
Appeal No.1242 of 1986 was also dismissed by the High Court c
by the same judgment passed against which no SLP has been
filed in this Court and, therefore, no reference is made to the
same in this judgment.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are
stated here. D
4. lynthukori Thaikkal Wakf (5 Kori Durga Wakf) (in short
"the Wakf') had instituted two suits in the Court of District Munsif,
Vridachalam for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit
properties as fully described in the plaint and for mesne profits.
The Wakf/respondents claimed in their plaint that the suit prop- E
erties belonged to them whereas the appellants before us al-
leged in their written statement that the suit properties were not
Wakf properties but they were private properties of one Syed
Kasim Saheb and others. After the death of Syed Kasim Saheb
and others, their leg.al heirs and representatives had sold the F
,~ suit properties to the appellants. The appellants further alleged
that the suits were barred by limitation under Article 134-B of
the Limitation Act, 1908. An additional plea was also taken by
the appellants that they had also perfected the title in respect of
the suit properties by way of adverse possession. On the basis G
of the aforesaid pleadings by the parties, the trial court, by a
common judgment, held that the suit properties belonged to the
Wakf/respondents. On the question of limitation and adverse
possession, the trial court held that the suits of the Wakf/respon-
dents were barred by limitation and appellants had perfected H
r

766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
y
A the title by adverse possession an_d on such findings, the trial ..,_
court dismissed the suits filed by the Wakf/respondent. While
dismissing the suit on limitation, the trial court held that in view
of Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the claim could not be
revived under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Feel-
B ing aggrieved by the common judgment of the trial court, ap-
peals were filed before the first appellate court, which confirmed -r . i
the findings of the trial court on the question whether the suit t
properties were Wakf properties or not. Therefore, two concur-
rent findings of the two courts below were arrived at on the ques-
c tion of the suit properties being Wakf properties. But on the
question of limitation and adverse possession, the first appel-
late court had set aside the findings of the trial court holding that
the suits were not barred by limitation under Article 96 of the I
Limitation Act, 1963 and also that the appellants had failed to
~
prove that they had acquired title to the suit properties by way of
D
adverse possession. On the aforesaid findings, the first appeals
were allowed and both the suits were decreed. Against the de- .,..,
.
cisions of the first appellate court, the appellants preferred three
appeals in the High Court, namely, Second Appeal Nos. 972/
86, 973/86, and 1242/86. During the pendency of these sec-
E ond appeals, the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, "Wakf Act") came
into force with effect from 151 of January, 1996. Section 107·of
the said Act provides that nothing contained in the Limitation
Act, 1963 shall apply to any suit for recovery of possession of
immovable property comprised in any Wakf or for possession
F of any interest in such property. The High Court in second ap-
~
r
peals also affirmed the concurrent findings of the two courts ~
below that the suit properties were Wakf properties. However,
on the question of limitation, the High Court by the common judg-
ment, which is under challenge in this Court, held that in view of
G coming into force of Section 107 of the Wakf Act, the bar of
limitation no longer existed and also held that in view of Section
112 of the Wakf Act, such provision also applied to the pending
~
proceedings and upon the aforesaid findings as noted herein
above, the appeals were dismissed. So far as the plea of ad-
H verse possession is concerned, it was held by the High Court in
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 767
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

the common judgment that the same was not available to the A
appellants. After the pronouncement of the judgment in SA Nos.
972 and 973 of 1996, two applications being CMP Nos. 3200
and 3201 of 2000 were filed before the High Court for bringing
on record the legal heirs and representatives of one of the ap-
pellants V.T. Duraiswami, who had passed away during the B
); ~ pendency of the second appeals. The applications for bringing
on record the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased,
V.T.Duraiswami, one of the appellants, were rejected by the High
Court. As noted herein earlier, against the common judgment
and decree dated 19th of November, 1999 of the High Court c
passed in the aforesaid second appeals and the order dated
24th of April, 2000 passed in CMP Nos. 3200 and 3201/2000
rejecting the applications for setting aside the abatement, Spe-
cial Leave Petitions, which after grant of leave, were heard by
us in presence of learned counsel for the parties.
D
Before the High Court, the following two questions were
raised -
(i) Whether the suit properties were originally Wakf
Properties or alternatively whether they ceased to
be Wakf properties as the defendants/appellants and E
their predecessors had perfected their title by way of
adverse possession ?
(ii) Whether the suits filed by the Wakf/respondents were
barred by limitation and, if so, whether Section 107 F
,. ~ of the Wakf Act could have the effect of reviving a
barred claim ?

So far as question No.1 is concerned, that is to say, whether
the suit properties were Wakf properties or not, we find that the
·courts below concurrently held that the suit properties were Wakf G
properties. Accordingly, we need not dilate on question No.1
as the said findings of fact were concurrently found by three
~
courts below and nothing has been brought before us to show
that the said findings of fact were either perverse or arbitrary.
Apart from that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

y
A appellants did not raise any serious submission questioning
the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
5. In view of our observations made herein above and in r
the absence of any serious challenge to the aforesaid findings
of fac( we do not see any ground to interfere with such concur-
B rent findings of fact of the courts below.
-r-...
i '~6 .. Let us now come back to the important question that
was raised in the form of question No.2, that is to say, whether
the suits filed by the Wakf/respondents were barred by limita- ·-,,.
tion and whether the plea of adverse possession was available t-
c
to the appellants in the suit filed by the Wakf/respondents. So
far as the question of limitation is concerned, we may reiterate,
as noted herein earlier, that the trial court on consideration of
the evidence and other materials on record, held that in the facts
and circumstances of the present case and on the interpreta-
D
tion of Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908 and Article 96 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 and also relying on several decisions
Y"
of this Court, rejected the contention of the Wakf/respondents
and held that the suits were barred by limitation under Article
134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908. However, in appeal, the first
E appellate court had taken a contrary view and held that the suits
were filed within 12 years of the appointment of the last Muthavalli
and accordingly, relying on Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
it held that the suits were not barred by limitation. It was also
held by the first appellate court that the alienations of the Wakf
F properties were by the persons who were holding them in trust
~
and, therefore, on its understanding of the scope of Section 1O ~-
of the Limitation Act, 1963 held that the alienations did not meet
the legal requirements for a plea of adverse possession against
the trust. Keeping in mind the findings of the trial court and the '
I

G appellate courts, we may note that the High court, in the im- I-
pugned judgment, has not given its opinion whether Article 96
of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply or Article 134-B of the t
Limitation Act, 1908 would apply in the present case. Without ~

going into this, the High Court instead. held that in view of the
H coming into force of the Wakf Act, the bar of limitation no longer
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 769
~y WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

exists and has held that the provision to that effect viz., Section A
107 of the Wakf Act would also apply to pending proceedings.
7. In the backdrop of these findings arrived at by the courts
below, let us now deal with the submissions made by the learned

...
.,..
counsel for the parties before us.
8. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
B

suits were clearly barred under the Limitation Act, 1908 and
once it has been found that the suits already stood barred un-
der the Limitation Act, 1908, Section 107 of the Wakf Act, which
came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1996, could not have the effect of re- c
viving the barred claim. Relying on Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 the learned counsel for the appellants ar-
gued that when Section 6(a) clearly spells out that a repeal shall
.not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which
the repeal takes effect, the barred claim could not have been
D
revived. He had drawn our attention to Section 112 of the Wakf
r-y
Act and submitted that when Section 112 of the Act also lays
down the provision similar to the one laid down under Section
6(a) of the General Clauses Act, the barred claim could not have
been revived. The learned counsel for the appellants further
contended that the High Court erred in merely adverting to Sec- E
tion 107 of the Wakf Act holding that it applied to pending pro-
ceedings as well. On the other hand, he submitted that the High
Court ought to have examined whether Section 107 had the
effect of reviving a claim already barred under the Limitation
4f Act, 1908. He also contended that the trial court was fully justi-' F
tied in holding that the claim was barred under Article 134-8 of
the Limitation Act, 1908 and that the reliance placed by the ap-
pellate court on Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was totally
wrong in view of Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There-
fore, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that un- G
der Article 134-8 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the suits were
-)' clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, Section 107 of the
Wakf Act could not have the effect of reviving the barred claim
as it is settled law that the right to sue is barred under the law of
limitation in force before the new provision comes into opera- H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
''<"'
A tion and the vested right accrued thereon, the new provision
could not revive the barred claim or alternatively shall take away
the accrued vested right, if any. In support of this contention, the
learned counsel for the appellant strongly placed reliance on
Section 6(a) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 112
B of the Wakf Act .
..,.- .....
9. So far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned,
the learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that since
the suit properties were accepted by the State Government as >-

the individual properties of the appellants considering them as
c absolute owners of the same for which the State Government
had granted individual pattas to the appellants in respect of the
suit pr.operties, the courts below were wrong in decreeing the
suit on the ground that the suit properties were Wakf properties
and that plea of adverse possession of the appellants in re-
D spect of the same could not be accepted. It was further con-
tended that since the suit properties were the subject matter of
alienation as early as in 1927 and there had been successive '"'""
alienations upto 1975, it must be accepted that the original
lramdars and their legal heirs had perfected the title in respect
E of the suit properties by adverse possession even prior to 1927.
It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants
before us that the High Court went wrong in declining to allow
the application for impleadment of the legal representatives of
the deceased V.T.Doraiswami when there were genuine rea-
F sons for the delay.
10. Relying on the aforesaid submissions, the learned coun- +..
sel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the High
Court in the second appeals should be set aside and the suits
should be dismissed.
G
11. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants were seriously contested by the learned counsel for
the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents had "-
seriously relied on the findings of all the courts below that the
suit properties were Wakf properties. It was further argued by
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 771
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~y

the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeals had A
abated against VT. Duraiswami and Kaliammal and, therefore,
the judgment of the High Court in second appeals had become
final. According to him, the vested rights could be taken away
by the repealing act expressly or by necessary implication. In
this connection, attention was drawn to Sections 59A and 598 8
,.,.,. of the Wakf (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act 34 of 1982)
which safeguards the right to recover property of the Wakf and
overrides the Limitation Act from 15th of August, 1947. The
learned counsel further contended that if Section 107 of the Wakf
Act was not given a retrospective effect, ambiguity and con- c
trary results would follow. He submitted that Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot come to the aid of the ap-
pellants in the present case because a different intention is mani-
fested in Sections 107 and 112 of the Wakf Act. Elaborating
this submission before us, the learned counsel for the respon-
D
dents submitted that the test as enumerated by this court was
-..,, whether the scheme of the repealing act and its aims and ob-
jects and section abrogated or destroyed the vested rights, if
any, and not that the repealing act made alive past actions. Ac-
cordingly, it was submitted that the Wakf Act only kept alive the
appurtenant etc. or administrative actions in its negative sense E
but destroyed that vested rights in positive terms by enacting
Sections 107 and 112 of the Act and by Sections 59A and 598
of the Wakf (Tamil NaduAmendmentAct), 1982.

The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted F
~ 1- the following :
1) An appeal is a continuation of a suit.
2) The court in appeal was bound to take notice of the
supervening events and the changes in law
G
3) All procedures in law are retrospective in operation
-,, and;

4) Section 107 of the Wakf Act must be said to be
retrospective in operation.
H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1j S.C.R.

~

A 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after considering the judgments of the courts below including
the materials on record and the statutory provisions, namely,
provisions of Wakf Act, Limitation Act, 1908 and 1963, the moot
question that needs to be decided in this appeal is Whether
8 Section 107 of the Wakf Act is retrospective in operation or
whether it can have the effect of reviving barred claims. Section -r ....
107 of the Wakf Act was made inapplicable to any suit for re-
covery of Wakf properties under the Limitation Act, 1963. As
noted herein earlier, the Wakf Act was enacted at the time when
c the second appeals of the appellants were pending. Before we
decide the question as posed, we may note the relevant provi-
sions ofthe different Acts which are as follows :-

Since Section 107 of the Wakf Act is the bone of conten-
tion of both the parties, we may first reproduce the said section
D which is as under:-
"107. Act 36 of 1963 not to apply for recovery of wakf 'i'._
properties.-. Nothing contained in the Limitation Act, 1963
shall apply to any suit for possession of immovable property
comprised in any wakf or for possession of any interest in
E such property."

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is also crucial and
relevant for rendering a proper decision in this appeal and the
same is reproduced as under: -
F "6. Effect of repeal. Where this Act or any [Central Act] or
Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, -f'
repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be
made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal
shall not-
G
a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at
which the repeal takes effect, or
y.·-
b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so
repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder
H or
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 773
_....,,
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability A
acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment
so repealed, or
d)
e) B
.... "T'
Section 112 of the Wakf Act is another important provi-
sion and is reproduced as under: -
"112. Repeal and savings. (1) The Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of
1954) and the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 (69 of 1984) c
are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any
action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to
have been done or taken under the corresponding
provisions of this Act. D
--y (3) If immediately before the commencement of this Act,
in any State, there is in force in that State, any law which
corresponds to this Act that corresponding law shall stand
repealed:
E
Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous
operation of that corresponding law, and subject thereto,
anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any
power conferred by or under the corresponding law shall
be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise F
'- t of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act
was in force on the day on which such things were done
or action was taken. "
13. Some provisions of the Limitation Act, viz., Article 134-
B of the Limitation Act, 1908, Article 96 of the Limitation Act, G
1963 and Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are also very
relevant for our purpose and therefore the said provisions are
-~
reproduced as under: -
Article 134 -B of the Limitation Act, 1908 -
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · , [2008).11 S.C.R.

A By the manager of a Hindu, Muhammadan or Budhist reli""
gious or charitable endowment to recover possession of im-
movable property comprised in the endowment which has been
transferred by a previous manager for a valuable consider-
ation-- the Limitation is 12 years--The period shall run
B from the death, resignation or removal of the transferor..
Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963-
By the manager of a Hindu, Muhammadan or 8udhTst reli-
gious or charitable endowment to recover pqssession of mov-
e able or immovable property comprised in the .endowment which
has been transferred by a previous manager for a valuable con-
sideration. --The period of limitation is 12 years-The pe-
riod shall run from the date of death, resignation dr rem.oval of
the transferor or the date of appointment of the plaintiff as man-.
ager of the endowment, whichever is later:
0
Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963-
"31. Provision as to barred or pending suits, etc . .,..Nothing
in this Act shall,
E a) enable any suit, appeal or application to be instituted,
preferred or made, for which the perio.d of limitation
prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 expired
before the commencement of this Act; or
b) affect any suit, appeal or application instituted,
F preferred or made before, and pending at, such
commencement. "
14. Although we have already briefly noted the findings of
the courts below, we feel it proper to undertake a more exten-
G sive examination.
The trial court, while dismissing the suits for recovery of
possession and mesne profits arrived at the following findings :-
"1. Since Syed Nabi and Syed Mahdoom had sold the
suit properties by virtue of Ex. 8.13, 8.16, 8.6 and
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 775
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
-'r

B.42 dated 2.4.1927, 3.4.1927, 27.4.1927 and since A
this case was not filed within 12 years after their
death, the suit was barred by limitation.
2. The argument that the sale deeds were executed by
the then muthavallis not only for self but also on behalf
B
" ..,..
of their minor children viz., Syed Kasim, Syed Kulu
and Syed Tipu and since the case was filed within
12 years of the death of such children, the suit was
not barred by limitation but could still not be accepted
because it could neither be assumed nor w~s it
pointed out by the plaintiffs that these children were c
also muthavallis with their fathers.
3. The argument that after the death of the muthavalli in
1922, no muthavalli was appointed till 12.6.1966 on
which date the plaintiff was appointed as the
D
muthavalli and the suit was filed within 12 years of
---., such appointment and since the High Court in a
decision had stated that a case would not be affected
by limitation if no muthavalli was appointed in place
of the former muthavalli, these suits would not be
barred by limitation, could not also be accepted. E

4. It was evident from the exhibits that the defendant
purchased the suit properties in the years 1927 and
1930 respectively and paid the kist etc. to some who
enjoyed that property absolutely. Since the suit was F
... 1 barred by limitation and the defendants and their
forefathers enjoyed the same for more than 12 years,
the plea of adverse possession had to be accepted."
15. In contradistinction to the above findings of the trial
court, the first appellate court, while decreeing the suits, arrived G
at the following findings: -
-); 1. The judgment in C. V.Purushotham vs. Chinna
Jeevangar Mutt Tirupati [AIR 1975 AP 153] could
not be relied upon because it was delivered by a
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) .11 S.C.R.
y-
A different High Court and reliance had to be placed in .''
the case of The Special Officer for Wakfs, Madras
Vs. Subramanyam & Ors. [1976 Vol.89 Law Weekly
467] and S.A. 800172 and S.A. 452/72 which stated
that suits could be filed within 12 years from the date
B of appointment of Muthavalli.
..,... ....
2. The Public Property (Extension of the Limitation) Act
1959 had extended the time limit in cases like this
so that these cases could be filed until 31 .12 .1970
if the transfers were made between 14.8.1947 and
c 7.5.1954.

3. As per section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1_963, it was
evident that if the plaintiff's right had not been
affected, he could file the suit. It had been stated that
the expiry date which was made like that under the
D
Limitation Act, 1908 could not be renewed as per
the new act and that if the time limit had been reduced ~--

as per the Limitation Act, 1963, it would not be
applicable to the pending suits. The recitals found in •
Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had to follow
E absolutely and straining the language would not be
permissible since it would cause hardship to others
later. Therefore under Article 96 of the Limitation Act,
1963, since the suit had been filed within 12 years
from the date of appointment of muthavalli, the suit
F was not barred by limitation.
+-"
4. No right of adverse possession existed because the
suit properties were wakf properties and, therefore,
the lnamdars were trustees of the same.
G 5. Even if the defendants/appellants had been in
possession of the properties and paying patta for
many years or transferred the patta in their own name,
they could not get the right of adverse possession in
"':-
view of Section ·10 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 777
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
-y
16. The High Court, while affirming the decisions of the A
first appellate court, except the finding no. 5, arrived at the fol-
lowing findings: -
1. Section 112 of the Wakf Act shows that the provisions
of the Act were intended to apply to pending
proceedings also because under Section 112, any B
;.-- -y
action taken under the repealed act would be
deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of the present act.
2. Under Section 6 of the General clauses act, the repeal c
of an enactment can not affect any right, privilege,
obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the
repealed enactment, but this provision can not be
resorted to if a different intention appeared and
therefore, Section 6 could not be applied to every
D
repealed provision or enactment regardless of the
~·-,.-
intention of the legislature and the language used in
the repealing provision, the object of the repeal and
the existence of a savings clause.
- ..
3. By enacting Section 107, the intention to destroy the I;
plea of limitation was made very clear. Reliance in
this regard was placed on the observations made in
State of Punjab Vs. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh (AIR
1955 SC 84).
4. In procedural matters, there was no vested right and F
... ¥ hence any amendment to the procedural matters
would apply to pending proceedings.
5. In view of the principles laid down in various
authorities and considering the objects behind the
G
Wakf Act, Section 107 would apply to pending
. proceedings also for the following reasons:
-:~ (a) Section 2 of the act holds that the act shall apply
to all Wakfs created either before or after the
commencement of the act. H
·-

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

A b) A separate tribunal is constituted for
determining disputes regarding Wakfs under
Section 83.
c) The jurisdiction of civil courts are barred under
section 85 of the act, in respect of disputes
8 determinable by the tribunal.
d) Section 112(2) specifically mandates that
anything done or action taken thereon shall be
deemed to be taken under the corresponding
c provision of the act. In this context, the
expression, 'anything done or any action taken
in the exercise of the powers' had been held
not to mean or include an act done by a person
in contravention of the provisions of the act but
as intended only to keep alive the official
D
actions, rules and notifications issued and done
in the exercise of the powers conferred under
the repealed provisions vide judgment of this
Court in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh
Pratap Singh's case (supra). Therefore, in the
E
absence of a specific provision expressly
saving or protecting the pending legal
proceedings, it would be incumbent on the
courts to give full effect to the provisions of the
act.
F
e) The act, being a welfare legislation, passed
with the intention of protecting trust properties,
ought to be considered in a manner consistent
with upholding the said objective. The objective
of the legislature was to destroy the rights of
G
trespassers and imperfect the alienees claiming
adverse title against the trust properties and as
such, no distinction can be made between the
pending proceedings and proceedings to be
commenced afresh. The various provisions of
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THA!KAL 779
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
-·y
the Act are self contained code intended to A
·affect pending proceedings also.
f) In.the suits filed by the occupants or the wakfs
prior 'to the coming into force of the act, the
i
'
~
wakfs will not be entitled to raise the defence
· under Section 107 whereas any suits filed or to B
~~ ~ be filed belatedly after coming into force of the
Act, the wakf would be entitled to raise the said
defence and the occupants would be deprived
of their right to raise the plea of adverse
possession. The legislature could not have c
' · intended such a fortuitous circumstances to be
the determinative factor to decide the rights of
parties.
g) It is also possible that in a pending suit, the
D
wakf wit~draws the suit with liberty to file it afresh
~-~ QI") the s·ame cause of action and thereby in the
fresh suit, confer upon itself the advantages of
Section 107 of the Act. Therefore, the
.. . interpretation to be placed should be purposeful
meaningful and reasonable not giving rise to E
anomalies and unintended situations .
. h) The issue of limitation in reference to disputes
.. .between the parties under the Wakfs Act, 1954
is also dependant upon a consideration of the F
Public Works(Extension of Limitation) Act,
.. ¥
Central Act 29 of 1959 and the subsequent
Wakf (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1982 in
and by which Section 59-A and 59-8 were
inserted in the Central Act of 1954. As a result
G
of Section 112(3) of the Wakf Act, all the State
Acts corresponding to the present act stand
-~ repealed which would add to the complexity of
-\ interprPting the rights of the. parties, if no
. retrospective effect is given.
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A 17. The decision of the appellate court was based on an
erroneous application under Section 10 of the Limitation Act,
1963 which was not applicable or relevant to the issues involved
in the case and therefore to that extent, the finding of first appel-
late court was liable to be set aside.
8 18. We have already noted the conclusions of the findings
arrived at by the three courts below including the High Court, as
noted herein earlier. From the findings arrived at by the High
Court, it is clear that in view of the coming into force of the Wakf
Act, the said Act did not advert to the question of applicability of
C the Limitation Act, 1908 or the Limitation Act, 1963 on a pecu-
liar facts of this case because according to the High Court, the
question of limitation ceased to exist after Section 107 of the
Act as it applied to pending proceedings also. As noted herein
earlier, the High Court did not decide whether the suits were
D barred by Limitation. However, in the present case, it would be
expedient that before we determine whether or not Section 107
applies to pending proceedings also thereby making the bar of
limitation non est, we should decide whether Article 96 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 would apply or Article 1348 of the Limita-
E tion Act, 1908 would apply in order to ascertain whether the
suits actually stood barred by limitation. It was the findings of
the first appellate court that the suits were filed within the limita-
tion period as prescribed under Article 96 of the First Schedule
to the Limitation Act, 1963 whereas the Trial Court had held that
F the suits were barred by limitation in view of Article 1348 of the
Limitation Act, 1908 .
. 19. From a careful consideration of the above aspect of
the matter, in our view, the first appellate court was not justified
in holding that the suits were filed within the period of limitation
G as prescribed under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In
our view, the view taken by the trial court was the correct one
and Article 1348 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply. We
have carefully noted two articles viz. Article 96 of the Limitation _,.~
Act, 1963 and Article 1348 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and we
H find that they are different from each other in so far as while
T. KALIAMURTHI &ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 781
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
-y
under the 1908 Act, 12 years was to run from the death, resig- A
nation or removal of the transferor, under the 1963 Act, the said
period of 12 years was to run from the date of death, resigna-
tion or removal of the transferor or the date of appointment of
the plaintiff as manager of the endowment, whichever was later.
Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that nothing in B
the Limitation Act, 1963 shall enable any suit, appeal or appli-
-;. y
cation to be instituted, provided or made, for which the period
of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908 expired be-
fore the commencement of this Act. Section 31 of the 1963 Act
assumes great importance which was completely overlooked c
by the first appellate court. Admittedly, in the present case, the
suits were filed long after the death of the Muthavalli and the suit
properties were transferred as far back as in 1927, therefore,
the suits were barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. In other
words, in the present case, the period of limitation prescribed
D
under the 1908 Act had already expired before the commence-
ment of the 1963 Act and, therefore, in view of the clear man-
~-,..
date of Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, suits could not
have been instituted by taking the plea that the same was within
the limitation under the 1963 Act.
E
20. Such being the view, we have already expressed on
the question of limitation, let us now examine whether Section
107 of the Wakf Act can have the effect of reviving a barred
claim.

21. The Limitation Act, 1908 was amended on the basis F

. ..
of the third report of the Law Commission and Limitation Act 36
of 1963 was enacted. The Wakf Act, 1954 as originally enacted
did not touch the question of limitation. Suits to recover immov-
able properties comprised in a Wakf were governed by Articles
134A and 1348 of the Limitation Act, 1908 inserted by Act I of G
1929 and the residuary Articles 142 and 144 of the said Act.
Articles 94 and 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to
Articles 134A and 1348 of the Limitation Act, 1908, while Ar-
-~
ticles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to Ar-
ticles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The correspond- H
~I

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

Y"-
A ing old law was Section 66G of the Wakf Act, 1954 inserted by
the Amendment Act 69 of 1984.
22. Section 107 lays down that nothing contained in the
Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to any suit for possession of
immovable property comprised in any Wakf or for possession
B of any interest in such property. Thus it can be said that this
~Al
section virtually repeals the Limitation Act, 1963 so far as the
Wakf properties are concerned. Therefore, it can be concluded
without any hesitation in mind that there is now no bar of limita-
tion for recovery of possession of any immovable property com-
c prised in a Wakf or any interest therein. In this background, let
us now see whether this section has any retrospective effect. It
is well settled that no statute shall be construed to have a retro- I
spective operation until its language is such that would require
such conclusion. The exception to this rule is enactments deal- '
r
D ing with procedure. This would mean that the law of limitation,
being a procedural law, is retrospective in operation in the sense
that it will also apply to proceedings pending at the time of the ... - ..
enactment as also to proceedings commenced thereafter, not-
withstanding that the cause of action may have arisen before
E the new provisions came into force. However, it must be noted
that there is an important exception to this rule also. Where the
right of suit is barred under the law of limitation in force before
the new provision came into operation and a vested right has
accrued to another, the new provision cannot revive the barred
F right or take away the accrued vested right. At this juncture, we
may again note Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, as repro-
duced herein earlier. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act clearly
...
provides that unless a different intention appears, the repeal
shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at
which the repeal takes effect, or affects the previous operation
G
of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered
thereunder, or affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability
acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment so repealed. .., -
23. From the above, it is clear that the right of action, which
H is barred by limitation at the time when the new act comes into

\
r
t
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 783
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
_.,,,, force, cannot be revived by the change in the law subsequently. A
In Ram Murthi & Ors. Vs. Puran Singh Sia Attra Singh &
Anr.[AIR 1963 Punjab 393}, it has been held that Section 107
renders the Limitation Act, 1963 inapplicable to suits for pos-
session of immovable properties comprised in any Wakf or any
interest therein but the right of a person to institute such a suit B
,.. .. which is already barred at the commencement of this Act can
not revive. It was further held that his title is extinguished and a
good title is acquired by the person in possession and that where
the title of the true owner is extinguished in favour of the wrong
doer, it is not revived by that person again getting into posses- c
sion. There is no remitter to the old title.
24. Let us also see Section 112 of the Wakf Act dealing
with Repeal and Savings. Sub-Section (1) repeals Wakf Act
1954 and the Wakf AmendmentAct 1984. Sub-Section (2) pro-
vides that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any D
action taken under the said acts shall be deemed to have been
done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act. In
-- ~
the present case, there is no specific provision which stipulates
that Section 107 has any retrospective effect. If we look at Sec-
tion 112, it is clear that Sub-Section (2) is the saving clause and E
provides validity to the actions taken under the repealed act. As
noted hereinearlier, the High Court has proceeded on the as-
sumption that a reading of Section 112 of the act leads to the
conclusion that the provisions of the act are intended to apply to
pending proceedings also. With regard to Section 6 of the Gen- F
eral Clauses Act, it has observed that although it is true that
• ';J. under that section, the repeal of an enactment will not affect any
right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under
the repealed enactment, but this provision cannot be resorted
to if a different intention appears and therefore, Section 6 can-
G
not be applied to every repealed provision or enactment re-
gardless of the intention of the legislature and the language used
in the repealing provision, the object of the repeal and the exist-
-~ ence of a savings clause. We agree with the observations of
~ the High Court with regard to Section 6 of the General Clauses
H
784 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. L
I

y---
A Act, but we are afraid, we are not inclined to accept the reason-
ing of the High Court that Section 112 shows that the Act had a t-
r
retrospective effect. Section 112 (2) of the Act is a saving clause
and saves the actions already done or taken under the repealed
enactment. This cannot lead to the conclusion that the Act has
B been given a retrospective effect. Rather, if seen properly, this
saving clause in the absence of any specific provision provid-
~ '<!
ing retrospective effect to the Act, reinforces the suggestion that
Act has no retrospective effect. This is because it saves ac-
tions already taken under the repealed enactment, i.e., it pro-
c vides that the new provisions will not affect the validity of the
actions already taken or in other words, it says that there will not
r-
be a retrospective effect. We do not mean to suggest that from
a saving clause, the retrospectivity or no retrospectivity can be
judged but we are of the view that the reliance placed by the
High Court on Section 112, which is a saving clause, to hold
D
that the act has a retrospective effect is not proper. In our view,
Section 112 is in conformity with Section 6 of the Act which also
provides that a repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obli- ~ .•

gation or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed en-
actment unless a contrary intention appears. Thus under Sec-
E tion 6 of the General Clauses Act and Section 112 of the Wakf
Act, prior operation of the repealed enactment or the legal pro-
ceedings or remedies instituted, continued or enforced etc. are
saved. Thus on this ground, we are of the opinion that the High
Court was not justified in relying on Section 112 of the Wakf Act
F to hold that the act has retrospective effect. The High Court has
relied on certain cases and we would advert to them in the later
part of this judgment while answering the c:ipplicability of Sec-
~ .
tion 6 to the present case in further detail.
25. There is another aspect of the matter. The learned
G
counsel for the respondents has contended that an appeal is
only a continuation of the suit and the High Court was bound to
consider any change in law affecting the question involved in
the appeal. It was also argued that Section 107 is retrospective i-

H
in operation because although there are no express words in f!I
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 785
-y WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

the amended statute that the new provision will apply to the pend- A
ing proceedings also, the legislature clearly intended that even
pending proceedings should be affected by such amendment.
We are not inclined to accept this submission. It is an admitted
position that there is no express provision provided for retro-
........ spective effect and Section 112 clearly saves actions done un- B
der the repealed enactment. Therefore, we are not inclined to
accept the first reasoning given by the High Court to hold that
Section 107 is retrospective in operation.
26. Let us now look at the other ground taken by the High
Court to hold that Section 107 has a retrospective effect. The c
High Court has held that it is a settled proposition of law that in
procedural matters, there is no vested right and hence any
amendment to the procedural matters would apply to pending
proceedings also. The learned counsel for the respondent re-
lied in the case of C.Beepathuma & Ors. vs. Velasari D
.. ~ Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya & Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 241]
in support of his submission that law of limitation was only a
procedural law and the provisions existing as on the date of the
suit should be applied. Similarly, in Mst.Rafiquennessa vs. Lal
Bahadur Chetri (since deceased) and his LRs. & Ors. [AIR E
1964 SC 1511), it was held that where vested rights are af-
fected by any statutory provision, the said provision should nor-
mally be construed as prospective unless the provisions related
to a procedural matter. In Mohd. Idris & Ors. vs. Sat Narain &
Ors. [AIR 1966 SC 1499), it was held that the law affecting pro-
• j. F
cedure was also retrospective. Similarly in Qudratullah Vs. Mu-
nicipal Board, [1974 (1)SCC 202] it was held in respect of a
provision that even if Section 6 of the General Clauses Act cou Id
be held as applicable, the provision was only procedural and
hence applicable to pending proceedings. The ratios of the
G
above authorities undoubtedly lay down the correct position of
law. Before we express any opinion on the above argument of
r
the learned counsel for the respondents, the ensuing discus-
sion on some of the other aspects is very important.

27. Section 107 provides that nothing in the Limitation Act, H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
y-

A 1963 would apply to any suit for possession of immovable prop-
erty, comprised in any Wakf or for any interest in such prop-
erty Therefore, for the application of Section 107, on 1st of Janu-
ary, 1996, the property must be comprised in the Wakf or the
Wakf must have some interest in such properties. If however,
B the right to property stands extinguished, then Section 107 can- r ~
not apply. In the present case, any right which the Wakf had over
the property stood extinguished under the Limitation Act, 1908. ~

A similar question came up for consideration of this court in
~

Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao Ghatge and Anr Vs. Baburao Bala
c Yadav (Dead) By Lrs. [(1978) 1 SCC 669] wherein this court in
paragraph 5 observed as under:-
"In our judgment, there is no substance in any of the
points urged on behalf of the appellants. The possession
of the purchasers was adverse in respect of all the
D properties at 1A to 1D and 1F to 1H from the very
beginning. By such adverse possession, those who had
.......
come in possession of those properties had acquired an
indef&asible title under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.
It is not necessary to decide in this case as to which of
E the articles in the first schedule of the said Limitation Act
applied to this case. Whether it was Articles 134, 134A, ..
1348, 142 or 144 t/Je claim had become barred long;
,.
long before the year 1955. The effect of Section 28 of the

F
Limitation Act was that the right to the property was
extinguished resulting in conferment of a title by adverse
possession on the person in possession of the concerned
-\: .
properties. It is well known that the effect of Section 28 of
the Limitation Act is not only to bar the remedy bi.Jt also
extinguish the right. The right to the property itself was
dead and gone. It could not be revived by a provision
G
like the one contained in Section 52A of the Act.
28. In the present case, as noted herein earlier, the trial ' 'l
court had held that the suits were barred under Article 1348 of
the Limitation Act, 1908 and, therefore, since the suits were
H barred under the 1908 Act, in view of Section 31 of the Limita-
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 787
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
-y

tion Act, 1963, Article 96 of the 1963 Act could not be applied. A
Section 31 was overlooked by the first appellate court. There-
fore, in our view, when the right stood extinguished, Section 107
cannot have the effect of reviving the extinguished right/claim.
This principle has also been followed in Karnataka Steel & Wire
Products and others Vs. Kohinoor Rolling Shutters & Engg. B
Works and others (2003) 1 SCC 76.
29. The learned counsel for the respondents argued be-
fore us that in the present case, only the remedy was barred but
the right was not extinguished and therefore, no reliance can be
placed on the authorities cited above. We are not inclined to c
accept this submission of the learned counsel for the respon-
dents. It is true that there is a difference between extinguishing
a right and barring a remedy. The difference has been explained
by this court in Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal and others
(2006) 5 sec 353 wherein this court at paragraph 11 and 12 D
,. ,,..'
observed as under: -
"11. Limitation is a statute of repose. It ordinarily bars a
remedy, but, does not extinguish a right. The only
exception to the said rule is to be found in Section 27 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that at the E
determination of the period prescribed thereby, limited
to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any
property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.
12. An extinction of right, as contemplated by the F
~- ., provisions of the Limitation Act, prima facie would be
attracted in all types of suits. The Schedule appended to
the Limitation Act, as prescribed by the articles, provides
that upon lapse of the prescribed period, the institution
of a suit will be barred. Section 3 of the Limitation Act
G
provides that irrespective of the fact as to whether any
defence is set out or is raised by the defendant or not, in
-)'- the event a suit is found to be barred by limitation, every
suit instituted, appeal preferred and every application
made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed."
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.
y-

A 30. The difference between the two aspects viz., barring
of remedy and extinguishment of right can also be seen in the
decision of this court in M/s. Bharat Barrel & Orum Mfg. Co.
Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Employees State Insurance Corporation
[(1971) 2 sec 860].
B In view of the above authorities, we are of the view that in r
the present case, once it is held that the suit for possession of
the suit properties filed at the instance of the Wakf were barred ..
under the Limitation Act, 1908, the necessary corollary would
be to hold that the right of the Wakf to the suit properties stood
c extinguished in view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963
and therefore, when Section 107 came into force, it could not
revive the extinguished rights. The authorities relied upon by
the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard in the
case of Sree Bank Ltd. vs. Sarkar Dutt Roy & Co. [(1965) 3
D SCR 708], Ohannalal vs. D.P Vijayvargiya & Ors. [(1996) 4
SCC 652], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C.Padma & Anr. ~ .
[(2003) 7 SCC 713] and S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A. P [(1996)
4 sec 596] have no application to the facts of the case be-
cause in these cases, unlike the present case, there was no
E extinguishment of the rights.
31. Let us now answer the submissions on behalf of the
learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for
the respondents relied on a decision of this court in
Smt.Dayawati & Anr. Vs. lnderjit & Ors. [(1966) 3 SCR 275] to
F sugg~st that the law affecting procedure is always retrospective .\' "
and therefore, Section 107 should be given retrospective effect.
In Dayawati's case (supra), this court observed as under: -
"Now as a general proposition, it may be admitted that
ordinarily a court of appeal cannot take into account a
G
new law, brought into existence after the judgment
appealed from has been rendered, because the rights of
1'-
the litigants in an appeal are determined under the Jaw
in force at the date of the suit ........................... Matt€rs
of procedure are, howe~1er, different and the law affecting
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 789
-y WAKF & QRS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

procedure is always retrospective. But it does not mean A
that there is an absolute rule of inviolability of substantive
rights. If the new law speaks in language, which, expressly
or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters,
the court of trial as well as the court of appeal must have
regard to an intention so expressed, and the court of B
appeal may give effect to such ·a law even after the
;udgment of the court of first instance. The distinction
between laws affecting procedure and those affecting
vested rights does not matter when the court is invited by
Jaw to take away from a successful plaintiff, what he has c
obtained under judgment."
32. We have to agree that the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents which lays down the cor-
rect position of law but we are afraid that it is distinguishable on
facts and cannot be of any help to the respondents. First, D
Dayawati's case (Supra) was not a case of extinguishment of
right in property. Moreover, in that case, there was a specific
provision viz., Section 6 which gave retrospective effect to the
provisions in that case. Also, the decision in that case dealt
with certain rights, which the judgment of the courts below had E
given. In the present case, however, the right to property flows
not from any judgment but by the application of the principle of
extinguishment of rights. The learned counsel for the respon-
dents also relied upon a decision of this court in Indira Sohan
Lal Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi and others [AIR F
1956 SC 77] to argue that in the present case, Section 6 of the ·
General Clauses Act would not apply at all because a different
intention appears from Section 112 of the Wakf Act and, there-
fore, the very question of reviving the barred claim does not
arise. In Indira Sohan Lal's case, this court observed as un- G
der:-
"10 .................... Whenever there is a repeal of an
· enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section
itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
y-

A simple repeal, there is scarcely any room for expression
of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by
a fresh legislation on the same subject, we would
undoubtedly have to look to the provision of the new Act,
but only for the purpose or determining whether they
B indicate a different intention.
The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act
expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether
it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot
therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that Section
c 6, General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal
of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section
6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new
legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or
contrary to the provisions of the Section. Such
D incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a
consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new
law ........................ Thus where the repealing section
of the fresh enactment which purports to indicate the
effect of repeal on previous matters, provides for the
operation of the previous law in part and in negative
terms as also for the operation of the new law in the other
part arid in positive terms, the said provision may well be
taken to be self contained and indicative of the intention
to exclude the application of Section 6 of the General
F . Clauses Act .............. Subsection 3 of section 58,
Administration of Evacuee property Act, 1950 purports
to indicate the effect of the repeal, both in negative and
in positive terms. The negative portion of it relating to
"the previous operation" of the prior Ordinance appears
to have been taken from Section 6 (b) General Clauses
G
Act while the positive portion adopts a" deeming"
provision quite contrary to what is contemplated under
that section. Under the General Clauses Act, the position
in respect of matters· covered by it would have to be
determined as if the repealing Act had not been passed,
H
T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR. v. FIVE GORI THAIKAL 791
WAKF & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

.}
----- while under section 58 of Central Act 31 of 1950, the A
. position so far as positive portion is concerned has to be
iudged as if.the repealing Act were in force at.the earlier
relevant date. Section 6 of the .General Clauses Act
cannot therefore be called in aid in a case governed by
}}

Section 58(3) of the Act ....... B
' " 33. After considering this submission of the learned coun-
sel for the respondents, it may appear that the controversy has
narrowed down to the point whether Section 6 of the· General
Clauses Act would apply in this case or not. That is to say, it
may appear that if we answer this question in the negative thereby c.
holding that Section 112 is self contained, the appeal would fail
because then the question of reviving a barred claim would not
arise at all because Section 112 does not contemplate or pro-
vide for any such provision. However, if we answer this question
in the affirmative, the inevitable result would be that the appeal D
.. ~
would have to be allowed because on all other points, discussed
herein earlier, the arguments of the learned counsel for the ap-
pellants have been accepted. However, in our view, the authori-
ties relied upon by the respondents deal only with the question of
repeal and savings but do not answer the question raised by the E
learned counsel for the appellants, i.e., whether Section 107 can
revive an extinguished right. We may note that the authority relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in
Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao Ghatge and Another (supra) cannot
be ignored. That decision was not a case of repeal and accord- F
~ 'j ingly, there was no reference to Section 6 at all in that Act. Never-
theless, it was held in that case that a right extinguished under
Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be revived by Sec-
tion 52A. Similarly, in the present case, we are of the opinion that
applicability of Section 6 is inconsequential because admittedly,
G
there was an extinguishment of rights under Section 28 and Sec-
tion 107 cannot revive those extinguished rights.
- .. 34. In view of the above discussions, we are, therefore, of
the view that Section 107 cannot revive a barred claim or extin-
guished rights. H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
y-

A 35. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and decree
of the High Court passed in the aforesaid second appeals are
set aside and the suits filed by the respondents are dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the second appeals, we do no find
any reason to interfere with the order passed in CMP Nos.3200
B and 3201 of 2000 and accordingly the Civil Misc. Petitions are
also dismissed.
36 .. The appeals are thus allowed. There will be no order
as to costs.·

C D.G. Appeals allowed.