IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Venkataramana Rao, J.
Khaji Muhammad Hussain Sahib
Versus
The Masjiday Mahmood Jamait Managing Committee of Pudupet, by its Secretary Shahul Hamid Marakkayar
Decided On : 06.09.1939
Mosque - Management Dispute - Act XXI of 1860 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the registration of the society under Act XXI of 1860 and the acquisition of the right of management by the society. It highlighted the interpretation of 'charitable society' and the acquisition of management rights through adverse possession. The court also addressed the rules for filling up vacancies in the society's committee.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the management of a mosque, with the defendant claiming the right of management as muthavalli. The plaintiff society, registered under Act XXI of 1860, sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the mosque's management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff society was validly registered and had acquired the right of management through adverse possession, thereby entitling it to the injunction.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the plaintiff society's registration, the acquisition of management rights, and the rules for filling up vacancies in the society's committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff society, formed for charitable purposes, was validly registered under Act XXI of 1860. It also ruled that the society had acquired the right of management through adverse possession, and the rules for filling up vacancies in the committee were sufficient.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the injunction in favor of the plaintiff society.
Venkataramana Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned City Civil Judge restraining the defendant by a perpetual injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs right of management, control and possession of the mosque, Masjiday Mahmood Jamait, situate in Pudupet, Madras. The facts relating to the suit out of which this appeal arises may be briefly stated. The said mosque was founded aboul-85 years ago. It is the plaintiffs case that it was built out of public subscriptions collected from the residents of Pudupet and was primarily intended for the benefit of the residents of the said locality. The defendants case is that it was built by one Gulam Mohammad, but there is no reliable evidence in support thereof except some evidence of tradition. But it is immaterial who founded it because the evidence establishes that it was the Mohammadan residents of the locality who were taking interest in the said mosque and contributing to its upkeep. There is no deed of foundation prescribing any rules for the management of the affairs of the mosque or for the appointment of a muthavalli or any servant of the mosque. From a document of 1863 (Ex. VII), it is evident that there was a muthavalli to the mosque and he was one Kasim Ali who was maternal grandfather of the defendant. Kasim Ali appears to have died in 1888. The defendant states that a year before his death the said Kasim Ali executed a will (Ex. I) in favour of the defendant in and by which he appointed the defendant as the muthavalli and on the death of Kasim Ali in pursuance of the will the defendant succeeded to the office of muthavalli and was functioning as such. It appears from the evidence that Kasim Ali was the Pesh Imam of the mosque and on his death the defendant continued to be the Pesh Imam and was doing the duties as such till the date of suit. The genuineness of Ex. I is challenged by the plaintiff. The learned City Civil Judge did not record any finding in regard to it but in a later suit between the parties it was found not to be genuine. It is no doubt a document more than thirty years old, but there are certain improbabilities which cast some doubt on the genuineness of the document. It is stated that the defendant was appointed muthavalli with the consent of Ghulam Mohammad who is alleged to have signed the document. From the stone inscription, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. B in the case, the mosque appears to have been built in 1849, and Ex. I is dated August, 1887. It is very improbable that Ghulam Mohammad was alive on that date and there is no reliable evidence of his, having been alive on that date. The defendant was admittedly a minor of 12 or 13 in 1887 and it is hardly likely that a minor was appointed either as a muthavalli or Pesh Imam and under Mohammadan Law such an appointment would be invalid. Further, if Ghulam Mohammad had been alive, there is no necessity for Kasim Ali to make the appointment and the appointment could have been made by Ghulam Mohammad himself. Some of these improbabilities render it unsafe for any Court to act on it. If this document cannot be relied on, there is nothing to show how the defendant came to be appointed and was functioning as muthavalli and Pesh Imath. The probabilities are that he, being the daughters son of Kasim Ali, was permitted by the congregation of Pudupet to do the duties of the said offices. There is no denying the fact that, at any rate from 1890 until 1918, for a period of nearly 30 years the defendant was managing the affairs of the mosque and collecting subscriptions and making disbursements thereof and generally attending to the affairs of the mosque. He was also functioning asPesh Imam. In 1918 the then circumstances necessitated a change of management of the mosque and it was thought desirable by the jamait or congregation of Pudupet to have the management put on a sound and legal basis. The main reason which apparently led to it was the trouble they ha
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.