Suit by worshipper for possession.

The appellant in this case is the plaintiff. The suit relates to a wakf property. The wakf was created by one Shaik Hussain under a document, Exhibit A-1 dated 19th February, 1904. Under this document Shaik Hussin provided that his three sons Sheik Ismail, Mohamed Hussain and Abdul Gafoor were to be joint trustees after him. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of Sheik Ismail and Mohammed Hussain respectively and the plaintiff is the son of Abdul Gafoor. The fourth defendant executed two possessory mortgages, Exhibits B-9 and B-32 to one Subramaniam over the property. This Subra-maniam assinged the othi to one Palavesa, who in turn assigned it to the first defendant. The first defendant created a othi of his othi right in favour of one Burhan Ali, who has assigned it under Exhibit B-33 to the second defendant, who is first defendant’s wife. The third defendant is a vendee from the fourth and fifth defendants of the wakf property under Exhibit B-7 dated 14th April, 1950 and Exhibit B-5 dated 24th February, 1949, respectively The plaintiff filed the suit out of which the second appeal arises for possession of the wakf property on the ground that it had been wrongly alienated by defendants 4 and 5. The trial Court held that though the othi in favour of defendants 1 and 2, was not valid by itself, defendants 1 and 2 have prescribed for their rights as mortgagees by adverse possession and that, therefore, that is a othi binding on the wakf; but as. regards the alienation in favour of the third defendant, the trial Court held that it was not valid or binding and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property. The plaintiff did not appeal against the decree of the trial Court in so tar as it held that defendants 1 and 2 had obtained title as mortgagees by adverse possession. But the third defendant alone appealed and the lower appellate Court has held that while the plaintiff as a worshipper is entitled to maintain the suit, he was not entitled to maintain a suit for possession. In effect, it held that the mortgages in favour of defendants 1 and 2 were binding, that the alienation in favour of the third defendant is not valid or binding, that the plaintiff though entitled to maintain a suit for declaration, was not entitled to file a suit for possession, that the plaintiff is not a Muthavalli and only a Muthavalli appointed by Court could get a decree tor possession. It also held that as the property was under a mortgage, there was no urgency about a decree for possession. In so far the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffis not a Muthavalli, it is undoubtedly correct; nor are defendants 4 and 5, Muthavallis. Alienations by defendants 4 and 5 in favour of the third defendant are therefore clearly invalid and not binding on the trust. Unfortunately nothing can be done about the othi in favour of defendants 1 and 2 at this stage as the plaintiff did not file any appeal with regard to that.

But there is no doubt that even a worshipper will be entitled to maintain a suit for possession of a trust property where the trustee has alienated the trust property and would not proceed to recover possession of the same or has disabled himself otherwise from maintaining a suit in respect thereof, or declines to institute a suit. The worshippers are in that case entitled to maintain a suit for preserving the trust property or restoring the property to the trust either by instituting a suit for declaration or for an injunction or even for possession. If the suit is one brought for possession by the worshippers, the Court can, after declaring the property to be trust property and setting aside the alienation, direct delivery of possession to the trustee. In cases where there is no trustee, it is open to the Court to direct delivery of possession to the worshippers on behalf of the trust. It has been so held in the decision in Rengasami Naidu v. Krishnaswami Aiyer1. This has been followed in the decision in Ahmed Kutty v.