SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(J&K) 143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
J.P. Singh, J.
Ghausia Memorial Trust & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 147/2009 c/w Contempt (c) No. D-1/2010
Decided On : 07 April, 2010

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Anil Gupta
Advocate For Appellant: B.L. Chatta
Advocate For Respondent: M.A. Bhat

The main legal point established is the requirement for a prima facie determination of the real issues between the parties and the need to address the questions related to the right to manage the affairs of the mosque and the existence of a prima facie case justifying injunctive directions.

Headnote:

Injunction - Trust Dispute - Trust Deeds - [Trust Deeds, Land Dispute, Mismanagement] - The court discussed the operation of the Trust Deeds relied upon by the parties, the management of the disputed land, and the allegations of mismanagement and misuse of funds. The court highlighted the need for a prima facie determination of the real issues between the parties and the requirement to address the questions related to the right to manage the affairs of the Masjid and the existence of a prima facie case justifying injunctive directions.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose over the management and administration of a mosque and its landed property. The plaintiffs alleged mismanagement and misuse of funds by the defendants, while the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had ulterior motives to usurp the property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lower courts had not adequately addressed the real issues between the parties and had acted illegally in issuing the injunction without determining the existence of a prima facie case. The court set aside the orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues: The issues included the right to manage the affairs of the mosque, the alleged ouster of the defendant from management, the possession of the mosque and its properties, and the allegations of mismanagement and misuse of funds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a prima facie determination of the real issues between the parties and the requirement to address the questions related to the right to manage the affairs of the mosque and the existence of a prima facie case justifying injunctive directions.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

1. A Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering in the management, administration and other matters of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh, Jammu and the landed property measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 331 min situated at Village Channi Rama, Jammu was filed by Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust, inter alia, pleading that the Trust had been constituted by ten persons namely Abdul Aziz Bhatt, Mushtaq Hussain Baji, Mohd. Bashir, Abdul Rashid Mir, Sadiq Hussain, Abdul Majid, Mohd. Aziz, Haji Shoket Ali, Haji Munshi and Mohd. Ashraf for, amongst others, better administration of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh.

2. It was indicated in the plaint that one of the petitioners namely Ghulam Rasool had been mismanaging and misusing the funds/donations/income of the said Masjid Sharief in connivance with other petitioners-defendants for last so many years.

3. The petitioners contested the respondents Suit denying the allegations of mismanagement of the affairs of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh which according to Ghulam Rasool was being administered and managed by him as its President. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had constituted a self styled Trust to achieve their nefarious design of usurping the property of the Masjid Sharief which was stated by the defendants to have been constructed on the land donated by Ghulam Rasools father. According to the defendants, Ghulam Rasool was managing the affairs of the Masjid Sharief smoothly with the help of other office bearers. It was further indicated by the defendants in their Written Statement that the plaintiffs had filed the Suit against the defendants when the latter had not obliged them to part with the possession of the land in possession of the Masjid where they wanted to raise construction of some Shops.

4. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued by the trial Court of learned City Judge, Jammu on February 19, 2009 whereby the petitioners-defendants were temporarily restrained from causing any sort of interference in the management, administration and other matters of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh and from interfering with the landed property measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 331 min situated at Village Channi Rama, Jammu under the possession and use of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh, Jammu. The defendants were further restrained from collecting any donation in the name of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh. This ex-parte order, on contest by the petitioners was made absolute vide trial Courts order of May 26, 2009.

5. Petitioners Appeal against the Order before learned Principal District Judge, Jammu having failed, they have invoked the Revisional Jurisdiction of the Court seeking setting aside of the orders of the trial Court and the Ist Appellate Court.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through their pleadings, copies whereof have been placed on records and the orders passed by the Courts below.

7. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that as the operation of the two Trust Deeds, one relied upon by the plaintiffs and the other by the petitioners-defendants, was in different fields and the subject matter of the Suit was covered by the Trust Deed relied upon by the plaintiffs, so there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs justifying issuance of the injunction.

8. Learned District Judge was, however, of the view that as the land over which the Masjid Sharief stood constructed was State land and did not belong to any private person, so in order to benefit maximum people of the locality, it would be just and proper if the property in dispute was managed and administered by the respondents because the petitioners had been mismanaging and misusing the funds/donations and income of the Masjid.

9. Both the Courts below have dealt with the case perfunctorily, avoiding prima facie determination of the real issues be
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top