Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Syed Zainul Abedeen, filed a suit under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, seeking a declaration that the property Mandarja Madnumber 14 was not Wakf Allah but Wakf Alal Aulad. The property had been surveyed by the Survey Commissioner under Section 4 of the Act, who, after inquiry, held it to be Wakf Allah in a report dated 2 January 1965. Based on this report, the list of wakfs was published in the Official Gazette on 2 December 1965 under Section 5(2). The appellant filed Suit No. 23 of 1967 on 17 January 1967, which was beyond one year from the publication date. The respondent, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 6(1), which prescribes a one-year limitation period. The trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court all dismissed the suit as time-barred. The appellant argued that the limitation period should be three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, or alternatively, that the two-month notice period under Section 56 of the Act should be excluded, making the suit within time. The Supreme Court held that the one-year limitation under Section 6(1) proviso is specific and exclusive, and Article 113 does not apply. The Court further held that the notice requirement under Section 56 does not extend the limitation period; the suit must be filed within one year from publication, and the notice period runs concurrently. The concurrent findings of the courts below were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Wakf Law - Limitation for Suit under Section 6 - Section 6(1) proviso, Wakf Act, 1954 - Suit challenging publication of list of wakfs must be filed within one year from the date of publication in Official Gazette - The period of limitation is absolute and cannot be extended by the notice requirement under Section 56 of the Act (Paras 14-18). B) Wakf Law - Notice under Section 56 - Section 56, Wakf Act, 1954 - Notice of two months is required before instituting a suit against the Board, but this does not extend the one-year limitation period under Section 6(1) proviso - The suit must be filed within one year from publication, and the notice period runs concurrently (Paras 17-18). C) Limitation Act - Applicability of Article 113 - Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 113 (three years from when right to sue accrues) does not apply to suits under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, as the special statute provides its own limitation period of one year (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 was barred by limitation as per the one-year period prescribed in the proviso to Section 6(1), and whether the requirement of two months' notice under Section 56 of the Act affects the computation of limitation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the suit was barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954. The Court held that the one-year limitation period from the date of publication of the list of wakfs in the Official Gazette is absolute and cannot be extended by the notice requirement under Section 56. Article 113 of the Limitation Act does not apply.
Law Points
- Limitation period for suit under Section 6 of Wakf Act
- 1954 is one year from publication of list of wakfs in Official Gazette
- Section 56 notice does not extend limitation
- Article 113 of Limitation Act not applicable
