Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Beneficiaries of Wakf Property Can Acquire Title Through Adverse Possession, Rules Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that beneficiaries of wakf property can acquire title through adverse possession, even if the property belongs to the waqf. The judgment, delivered by Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, clarifies the legal position of beneficiaries and their rights in relation to wakf properties.

Justice K.M. Joseph stated, "A beneficiary of a waqf cannot be described as a stranger to the waqf... A beneficiary of a waqf is not like a trustee, who assumes possession in his character as a Trustee, coming under the restraint of discarding his character as Trustee and donning the robes of an encroacher or a person asserting hostile title."

The court further emphasized that a beneficiary of a waqf should not be considered a fiduciary and does not have a duty to protect the interest of another party. This ruling recognizes the distinct position of beneficiaries and upholds their right to claim adverse possession of wakf properties.

The judgment also addressed the issue of void transactions and the application of the Limitation Act. Justice Hrishikesh Roy noted, "A transfer which is void ab initio is in the eye of the law no transfer at all... The Act cannot revive an extinguished title as nothing stood in the way of running of time from the date of the second sale under the law as it stood."

The Supreme Court's decision sets a significant precedent, providing clarity on the rights of beneficiaries in relation to wakf properties. It establishes that beneficiaries can acquire title through adverse possession, ensuring their rightful claim over the property.

Date of Decision: April 13, 2023

SABIR ALI KHAN vs SYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN  AND OTHERS 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/13-Apr-2023-SABIR-ALI-KHAN-Vs-SYED-MOHD.pdf"]                          

Latest Legal News