KAN SINGH, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as well as mesne profits.

2. The suit was filed by the Managing Committee of the Shahi Jama Masjid, Merta City. The mosque known as the Shahi Jama Masjid is said to have been constructed by the Muslim Emperors of Delhi. It is a massive building-. It has a solid platform and comprises heavy arches, domes and lofty Minars. It is a protected ancient monument and is under the supervision of the Archaeological Department. According to the plaintiff, there are a large number of shops appurtenant to the mosque.

3. The subject matter of the litigation is a small strip of open land 5-1/2 x 4-1/2 situated on the back side of the mosque towards the south of the western corner of the main building. It is sand witched between two shops. According to the plaintiff, the strip of land in question was in the ownership and possession of the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Management Committee had been admitting tenants on it from time to time. The grievance of the plaintiff was that the Municipal employees of Merta had fixed certain slabs of stone in the disputed strip of land. This is said to have been done by stages. At one time two slabs were put to start with and then later on 4 more slabs were fixed. What is written on these slabs of stone could not be deciphered, but according to the plaintiff, there was the figure of a donkey on one of the slabs and also there was some inscription forbidding the Bawris (formerly recorded as a criminal tribe) from undertaking the obnoxious trade in tobacco. In the year 1956 the Management Committee of the mosque made a complaint against the fixation of the new slabs in the disputed strip to the Municipal Board, Merta and on 31.3.56 the Municipal Board passed an order directing the removal of a slab that had been newly put and it was recited in the resolution (Ex. 6 on record) that two slabs were old ones. According to the plaintiff, after 01-3-56 three more slabs were introduced by the Municipal employees in the disputed strip with the connivance and support of some of the Hindus of Merta. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit against Hindus of Merta City in a representative capacity.

4. It was prayed that a mandatory injunction be granted against the defendants for the removal of the six slabs and further the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering with the enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff. It was further prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs in opening a door on the suit land. The plaintiffs also claimed mesne profits at Rs. 11/-per month from the defendants. Rupees 11 were claimed as mesne profits, because one Ismail Bhadbhooja who was made to quit by the defendants was paying Rs. 11/- per month as rent to the plaintiff.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was denied by them that the suit land was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. It was asserted that the plaintiffs were incompetent to lease out the disputed land. It was denied that any slabs of stone had been freshly introduced on the disputed land and it was pleaded that the so-called stone slabs were having inscriptions and images thereon and they were of religious importance for the Hindus. According to them, they were existing for almost 100 years.

6. The defendants further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as in accordance with the provisions of sec. 92 C.P.C. sanction of the Government Advocate had not been taken by the plaintiffs before filing the suit. I may pause to state that there was perhaps a mis-apprehension regarding the designation of the officer and the defendants perhaps meant the Advocate General when they pleaded that without his permission the suit was not maintainable. Then it was pleaded that the Government as well as the Municipal Board were necessary parties to the suit.

7. The learned Civil Judge, Merta, in whose court the sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document