Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

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