JUDGMENT Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. - This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 26.10.1999, in O.S. No.8 of 1985 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit. 2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit for possession of plaint schedule mentioned property, for mesne profits of Rs.50,640/- over the plaint schedule property and for future profits against the defendants. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.8 of 1985, are as under: The plaintiff Darga was founded by the Muslims of Sanivarapupet village that the plaint schedule property was endowed to the plaintiff-Darga about 2 centuries back for its upkeep and maintenance and to celebrate the annual Urusu that the Inam Commissioner also had confirmed the said Inam to the plaintiff-Darga on 01.05.1860 that the survey commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Waqf Act 1954 also held on 07.01.1957 that the plaint schedule property is a Waqf property that the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board published the plaint schedule property as Waqf property in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 19.04.1962 that the plaint schedule property became Waqf property by user also that Md.Sheriff and his sons Adam Sheriff and Mahaboob Sheriff were the share holders of the office-cum-Muthawallis of the plaintiff-Darga. The plaintiff further pleaded that it is learnt that Md.Shariff obtained a ryotwari patta in his name with respect to the plaint schedule property by making false and fraudulent representation in derogation of the Waqf that the said ryotwari patta is void and illegal under law that the above said Muthawallis sold item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to N.Challayya under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1960, who in his turn along with his son Ramarao and the above said Muthawalli sold away the same to the defendants 1 to 3 under a sale deed dated 16.07.1963. The 4th defendant is the sister of the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 3 are in possession of plaint schedule property. The 4th defendant is the sister of the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 3 are in possession of plaint schedule property. The 4th defendant has applied for layout of the said property that the above said Muthawallis had further sold item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to K.Achuta Ramayya on 12.12.1962 who in his turn gifted the same to V.Parijatham under a settlement deed dated 17.02.1965 that the said Parijatham in her turn sold the same to the 5th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1971 that infact the Muthawallis have no rights to make such alienations with respect to the plaint schedule property without the prior permission of the Court of Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board that there is no legal necessity to make such alienations of the same that out of the said Muthawallis, Md.Sheriff died in 1964 and Adam Sheriff died in 1978 that Mahaboob Sheriff left the village that item No.1 of the plaint schedule was yielding an income of Rs.5,000/- and from item No.2 it was Rs.2,000/- per acre per annum that after knowing about the alienations with respect to the plaint schedule property, 3 months prior to the suit, the plaintiff-Darga got issued a legal notice dated 25.12.1984 to the defendants 1 to 5 demanding them to deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to it. The defendants 1 to 5 got issued reply notices with false allegations that Md.Galib Baig who is the devotee of Saint Hajarat Jamalsha became the Muthawalli of the plaintiff-Darga in 1981 after Mahaboob Sheriff abandoned its management that the Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board accorded permission on 05.12.1984 to Md.Galib Baig to file a suit and that the plaintiff-Darga has filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property, past profits, mesne profits and for costs. 5. 5. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3, by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The first defendant and the defendants 2 and 3 are not in possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property that he and the defendants 2 and 3 are neither the owners nor have any right and title over the said property that he and the defendants 2 and 3 are not the necessary and proper parties to the suit and that the suit is liable to be dismissed against him and the defendants 2 and 3 with costs. 6. The fourth defendant filed a written statement denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The plaint schedule property was an Inam land confirmed in the name of the individual Md.Sheriff that the title deed bearing No.194 issued by the Inam Commissioner on 04.05.1860 also would show the same that even though the extent of the land covered by the grant was noted as Ac.6.05 cents in the title deed. The actual extent according to village accounts is Ac.5.44 cents that the discrepancy with regard to the extent must have been arisen due to re-survey operations held subsequent to the issue of title deed that ryotwari patta with respect to plaint schedule property was granted to Md.Sheriff after following the procedure and as per provisions of the Inam Abolition Act 1956, the said order became final as no appeal was preferred to the appellate authority within 60 days of the passing of the same. The then District Collector also wrote the Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board in Roc.B.3.14774/67 - Revenue that the valid patta was granted under Inams Abolition Act to Md.Sheriff and that the said order has become final, this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this suit that she got item No.1 of the plaint schedule property under a registered settlement deed dated 29.09.1970 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then that herself and her predecessors in title have perfected their title to the above said property by virtue of adverse possession. After she got the above said property by virtue of such settlement deed, she raised Guava garden and the said garden dried about one year prior to the suit due to non-availability of water, the layout also approved with respect to the above said property. 7. The 5th defendant has filed his written statement reiterating the contentions taken by the 4th defendant and also contended that K.Achuta Ramayya had purchased item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from Md.Shariff and his 2 sons for a sum of Rs.2,500/- under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1962, later the above said K.Achuta Ramayya settled the said property in favour of V.Parijatham, who sold the same to him under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1971 along with other property for Rs.20,000/- and delivered possession of the same to him and the suit is barred by limitation. 8. When the matter was coming for conducting trial, the plaintiff-Darga impleaded the subsequent alienees with respect to the plaint schedule property as defendants 6 to 20 and got the plaint amended to that effect that the above said alienees got the plaint schedule property by way of registered documents with full knowledge that it is Waqf property and that it is entitled to get the decree against them also. 9. The 7th defendant has filed her written statement reiterating the material averments made by the defendants 4 and 5 and also mentioning her case with regard to the purchase of 396 square yards of site out of the total extent of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from the 5th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.1983 for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,920/-. 10. The defendants 9 and 10 filed their written statements reiterating the averments made by the defendants 4 and 5 and also mentioning about the extents from out of the total extent of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property purchased from the 5th defendant under separate registered sale deed dated 27.03.1984 for valuable consideration of Rs.7,920/- each. 11. The defendants 12 and 15 filed two separate memos adopting the written statement of the 5th defendant. 12. The defendants 8, 13 and 14 have filed a common written statement mentioning about their respective extents purchased from the 5th defendant with respect to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property under separate registered sale deeds for valuable consideration. 13. 11. The defendants 12 and 15 filed two separate memos adopting the written statement of the 5th defendant. 12. The defendants 8, 13 and 14 have filed a common written statement mentioning about their respective extents purchased from the 5th defendant with respect to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property under separate registered sale deeds for valuable consideration. 13. The 18th defendant has filed his written statement with respect to his purchase of 404.4 square yards from out of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property from the 4th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 27.05.1991 for Rs.50,315/- and also about the purchase of such an extent by 19th defendant. 14. The 19th defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 18th defendant. 15. The 20th defendant has filed his written statement reiterating the material averments made by the defendants 4 and 5 in their written statements and also mentioning about his purchase of part of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property from 4th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1993 and ultimately contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs against him. 16. The defendants 6, 11, 16 and 17 are remained exparte. 17. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the schedule property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profits in the schedule property prior to the suit and if so for what amount and against which defendants? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other future profits? (iv) Whether the plaint schedule property was endowed to suit Darga for upkeep and maintenance and to celebrate annual Urusu? (v) Whether the suit property was Waqf property at any time? (vi) Whether the suit property was an Inam land confirmed in the name of Md.Shariff? (vii) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit? (viii) Whether the defendants 4 and 5 and their predecessors in title perfected title to the items 1 and 2 of the schedule by adverse possession and for what relief? (ix) To what relief? 18. On perusal of the entire record, the trial Court framed the following additional Issue on 26.10.1999 under Order XIV Rule 5(i) of Civil Procedure Code. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 19. (ix) To what relief? 18. On perusal of the entire record, the trial Court framed the following additional Issue on 26.10.1999 under Order XIV Rule 5(i) of Civil Procedure Code. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 19. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A48 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, DW1 to DW6 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. 20. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the Suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 26.10.1999, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 21. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, on behalf of Sri M.Balanga Srinivas, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff and Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel on behalf of respondents. 22. The learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff would contend that in the earlier Waqf Act 1954 there was no period of limitation for recovery of Waqf properties and that the limitation has no application to the present facts of the case. He would further contend that the trial Court came to wrong conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. He would further contend that the trial Court erred in law holding that the respondents/ defendants 4 and 5 and their predecessor in title have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. He would further contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. 23. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to conclusion and dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial judge. 24. Having regard to the pleadings in the Suit and the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this court, the following points would arise for determination: I. Whether the suit in O.S.No.8 of 1985 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Eluru is barred by law of limitation? II. II. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled recovery of possession of plaint schedule property as prayed in the plaint? III. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? 25. Point Nos.1 and 2: The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is a Waqf property and the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board published the plaint schedule property as a Waqf property in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 19.04.1962 that the plaint schedule property became Waqf property and Md.Sheriff and his sons Adam Sheriff and Mohammad Sharief were the share holders of the office-cum- Muthawallis of the plaintiff-Darga and the Md.Sheriff obtained a ryotwari patta in his name in respect of the plaint schedule property by making a false and fraudulent representation. The plaintiff further pleaded that the said ryotwari patta is void and illegal under law and the said Muthawallis sold item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to N.Challayya under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1960 who in turn along with his son Ramarao and the said Muthawallis also sold away the same to defendants 1 to 3 under a sale deed dated 16.07.1963, the 4th defendant is the sister of the defendants 1 to 3 and 4th defendant has applied for layout of the schedule property and she sold away the item No.2 of the schedule property to one K.Achyutharamaiah on 12.12.1962 who in turn gifted the same to V.Parijatham under a registered settlement deed dated 17.02.1965. The plaintiff further pleaded that the said Parijatham in her turn sold the same to 5th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1971. The plaintiff further pleaded that the above Muthawallis have no right to make such alienation in respect of the plaint schedule properties. 26. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A48. Ex.A15 goes to show that the Inam commissioner executed a title deed dated 04.05.1860 in favour of Md.Sheriff in respect of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A15 goes to show that an extent of Ac.6.05 cents of dry land was given under Ex.A15 to Md.Sheriff. Here the extent of the plaint schedule property is only Ac.5.44 cents. Admittedly, none of the parties disputed the identity of the plaint schedule property. Further more, Ex.A15 coupled with Ex.A9 goes to show that the property under Ex.A15 was given to Md.Sheriff as a mujawar of the plaintiff-Darga. Here the extent of the plaint schedule property is only Ac.5.44 cents. Admittedly, none of the parties disputed the identity of the plaint schedule property. Further more, Ex.A15 coupled with Ex.A9 goes to show that the property under Ex.A15 was given to Md.Sheriff as a mujawar of the plaintiff-Darga. Moreover, Ex.A6 gazette publication dated 19.04.1962 goes to show that the government notified the plaint schedule property as a property of the plaintiff-Darga. In Ex.A38 Waqf survey commissioner report, it was specifically mentioned that the plaint schedule property is a Waqf property belongs to plaintiff-Darga. 27. The material on record reveals as per Ex.A40, the special Deputy Tahsildar (Inam), Eluru, had passed an order on application made by Md.Sheriff granting patta with respect of the plaint schedule property in his favour, further more Ex.A39 goes to show that the then Tahsildar made enquiry in the year 1959 under Andhra Inams Abolition Act 1956 and in pursuance of such enquiry, it was held by Tahsildar that the plaint schedule property is an Inam land. 28. The learned counsel for respondents would contend that PW1 has no authority to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Darga. PW1 in his evidence in cross examination admits that he had not filed any document into the Court to show that he is the Muthawalli of the plaintiff-Darga and he pleaded ignorance about the plaintiff-Darga and also its property details. He further admits that he had not seen any document with regard to giving of property to the plaintiff Darga by the concerned in the beginning and he had not returned any amount with regard to the income and expenditure of the plaintiff-Darga during his tenure as a Muthawalli. He further admits that he had not informed to Waqf Board at any time about the donations collected and the details thereon. He further admits that he does not know the Mohammad Sheriff and he has not seen him and he had not filed any document into the Court to prove the said Mohammad Sheriff was Muthawalli prior to Adam Sheriff. He further admits that he had not seen any order appointing Adam Sheriff as the Muthawalli and he does not know whether he maintained any accounts. He further admits that he had not seen any order appointing Adam Sheriff as the Muthawalli and he does not know whether he maintained any accounts. He further admits that he does not know whether Mohammad Sheriff was granted patta in respect of plaint schedule property by Inam Tahsildar under Inam Estate Abolition Act and whether the Waqf Board raised any objection for the same. He pleaded ignorance about the selling of the said property under Ex.A1 to one Challayya and so also the Challayya sold the same under Ex.A2 to defendants 1 to 3 and he also pleaded ignorance about the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Venkataswamy in the partition deed dated 24.04.1965. He further admits that since 1970 onwards the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is under the possession of the fourth defendant. The above admissions of PW1 clearly goes to show that he does not know anything, he pleaded ignorance in almost all the aspects. Ex.A7 is the authority said to have been issued by plaintiff-Darga. In the said authorization it was specifically mentioned by the Secretary of Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board, Hyderabad that the suits will be filed at the costs and expenses of the petitioner Sri Mohammad Galib Baig Saheb, it seems that Mohammad Galib Baig Saheb made an application before the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board and the Waqf Board permitted the PW1 to file the suit and the entire expenses and Court fees has to bear by PW1. 29. It is nowhere mentioned in Ex.A7 proceedings that PW1 is a Muthawalli of plaintiff-Darga. As seen from Ex.A7, permission was accorded to PW1 to file the suit at his costs and expenses only that too on presenting a representation dated 03.12.1984 before the Waqf Board by PW1. Further more in Ex.A10 legal notice there is no whisper that the said notice was issued in the capacity, as a Darga, of Muthawalli. As per the admissions of PW2, PW1 was nominated by the Muslim Community as a Muthawalli and he is one of the members of such community and he was appointed in 1984 after issuance of Ex.A7 proceedings and they have not informed such appointment of PW1 to Waqf Board. As per the admissions of PW2, PW1 was nominated by the Muslim Community as a Muthawalli and he is one of the members of such community and he was appointed in 1984 after issuance of Ex.A7 proceedings and they have not informed such appointment of PW1 to Waqf Board. As per the own admissions of PW3, the Waqf Board did not give any authorization for appointment of PW1 as Muthawalli nor any appointment order was given to him and no written proof is there that the elders appointed PW1 as Muthavalli. PW3 further admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that PW1 was a Mujawar but not Muthawalli. As per the own admissions of PW5, during the year 1981 there was nobody to look after the plaintiff Darga and PW1 acted as a Mujawar and there is no document to prove the same. Moreover, the plaintiff Darga has not placed any cogent evidence before the Court below to prove that the appointment of PW1 was given as a Muthawalli and the same was done legally and with the permission of Waqf Board. Furthermore, the material on record clearly goes to show that the Waqf Board has not given any permission to PW1 to act as a Muthawalli of plaintiff-Darga. The aforesaid reasons clearly go to show that the PW1 has no authority to institute the suit. 30. The learned counsel for respondents would contend that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiff relied on Ex.A44 to Ex.A48. The defendants herein are not a party to the said proceedings. The material on record clearly goes to show that the suit is instituted by the plaintiff Darga on 24.01.1985 before the trial Court. The same is not at all disputed by both sides. The present suit is filed for more than 20 years of the alienations made by defendants. As per the case of plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 5 alienated the plaint schedule property away back about 20 years ago prior to institution of suit, therefore, the suit for recovery of possession is barred by law of limitation. 31. The specific case of the appellant is that as per Section 107 of Waqf Act 1995, limitation Act 1963 has no application to the Waqf property. 31. The specific case of the appellant is that as per Section 107 of Waqf Act 1995, limitation Act 1963 has no application to the Waqf property. The aforesaid Act came into force with effect from 01.01.1996, the present suit is instituted on 24.01.1985, therefore, the provisions of amended Act 1995 is not at all applicable to the present facts of the case. It was pleaded by the plaintiff before the trial Court that as per Section 66(g) of Waqf Act 1995, the period of limitation for recovery of Waqf property is 30 years and that the suit is in time. The said plea raised by the plaintiff is rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. The insertion of Section 66(g) of the Act took place with effect from 23.06.1986 and the present suit is filed on 24.01.1985 therefore the insertion of Section 66(g) of the Act is not at all applicable to the case on hand. 32. It was specifically pleaded by the respondents that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Even according to the case of the plaintiff, in the plaint itself, it was specifically pleaded that Item 1 of the plaint schedule property was sold away by the said Muthawallis to one Mallapureddi Challaiah under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1960, the said Challaiah, his son Ramarao and the Muthawallis together have sold away the said property to defendants 1 to 3 under a sale deed dated 16.07.1963, the 4th defendant is the sister of defendants 1 to 3, defendants 1 to 4 are now in possession of the said item 1 of plaint schedule and the 4th defendant has applied for a layout in the said property. 33. The plaintiff pleaded that the Muthawallis sold away item 2 of the plaint schedule property to one Kollipara Achyutharamaiah on 12.12.1962 and the said Achyutharamaiah gifted away the same to one Smt Veeramachaneni Parijatham under a settlement deed dated 17.02.1965, she, in her turn, sold away the same to the 5th defendant on 27.06.1971 and since then the 5th defendant has been in possession of the said item 2 of the plaint schedule property. 34. The above pleadings of plaintiff is supported by the own evidence of plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence. 34. The above pleadings of plaintiff is supported by the own evidence of plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence. Admittedly, the suit is instituted on 24.01.1985, the defendants and predecessors in title have been in possession of the plaint schedule property from 1960 onwards in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and from 1962 onwards in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. Furthermore PW1 specifically admitted in his evidence in cross examination that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property has been in possession of 4th defendant since 1970, he also further admitted that the purchasers have purchased the plaint schedule property from Md.Sheriff for sale consideration, it was also specifically admitted by PW1 in his evidence in cross examination itself that he came to know about the alienations in 1964 or 1965. The above circumstances clearly goes to show that PW1 is having knowledge about the alienations made by the defendants in the year 1964 and 1965. Admittedly the plaintiff is not in possession of plaint schedule property since 1960. As per the own admissions of PW1, the defendants and their predecessors in title are in the possession of plant schedule property for more than 20 years prior to institution of suit. The suit is instituted on 24.01.1985, therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the suit is hopely barred by limitation. By considering the above circumstances and considering the evidence produced by the defendants it is clear that the defendants and their predecessors in title have perfected their title by way of adverse possession over the plaint schedule property. As per the own admissions of PW1, he came to know about the alienations in the year 1964 or 1965, the suit is instituted on 24.01.1985, the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that the suit is hopely barred by limitation and the defendants and their predecessors in title have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. On considering the material on record, the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that the plaintiff is not at all entitled the recovery of possession of plaint schedule property. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the trial Judge, accordingly the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the appellant/plaintiff. 35. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the trial Judge, accordingly the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the appellant/plaintiff. 35. Point No.3: In view of the findings, in point Nos.1 and 2, I hold that the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit, accordingly, the point No.3 is answered. 36. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 26.10.1999, in O.S.No.8 of 1985 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.