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

ABDUL CADER ET AL v. AHAMADU LEBBE MARIKAR ET AL
NLR37V257



Abdul Cader Et Al V. Ahamadu Lebbe Marikar Et Al

[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL.]

 1935   Present: Lord Alness, Lord Mangham, and Lord Roche.

ABDUL CADER et al. v. AHAMADU LEBBE
 MARIKAR et al.

Maradana Mosque Ordinance-Action for declaration that a meeting of the congregation was irregularity held-Action brought by the trustees- Right of plaintiffs to institute proceedings-Necessary parties-Belated objection-Trusts Ordinance, No. 9 of 1917, s. 102-Cioil Procedure Code, s. 17.

Where an action was brought by two members of the Board of Trustees of the Maradana Mosque, who were also members of the congregation, for a declaration that a meeting purporting to be a meeting of the congregation of the Mosque was irregularly held in that the defendants wrongfully caused to be excluded there from a large number of the members of the congregation,-

Held, that section 102 of the Trusts Ordinance did not exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain the action and that the plaintiffs in their individual and not in a representative capacity had an interest in the proper conduct of the affairs of the Mosque and had a right to complain of a meeting irregularly held.

Held, further, that it would have been proper to have joined one or more persons, not being officials, to have represented the congregation, but the Court would not uphold a belated objection on this ground if injustice would result from giving effect to it.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court.[133 N. L. R. 97.]

November 8, 1935. Delivered by LORD ROCHE-

This is an appeal from two decrees of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon dated October 14, 1931, affirming a decree of the District Court of Colombo dated August 25, 1930, in an action wherein the first two respondents were plaintiffs and the appellants and the other respondents were defendants. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows :-

There is and has been since the year 1818 an important mosque in the city of Colombo known as the Maradana Mosque. At the times material to the present action and appeal the affairs of this mosque were regulated by an Ordinance entitled "The Maradana Mosque Ordinance of 1929". This Ordinance incorporated persons named in a schedule thereto and their successors as a corporation under the name and style of "The Board of Trustees of the Maradana Mosque". The Ordinance also provided that the rules and regulations set out in another schedule should be the rules of the corporation reserving certain powers to the congregation to make fresh rules.

The following rules are material :-

Rule 1 (b) provided that-

" (b) The right of managing the affairs appertaining to the said mosque shall be exercised by Ceylon Moors (Sonager) professing the

Muhammadan religion who have attained the age of majority and who are permanent residents of Colombo, and who have their religious ceremonies performed by the Khatib or Khatibs (priests) of the said mosque, and by other Muhammadans who may be admitted as members of the congregation under paragraph (c) of this article ".

Rule 1 (c) provided that-

" (c) It shall be competent for the congregation of the said Maradana Mosque to admit by special resolution any Muhammadan, though not a Ceylon Moor, as a member of the congregation of the Maradana Mosque at a duly convened meeting of the congregation ".

Rule 1 (d) provided that-

" (d) The term congregation in the following rules and regulations shall refer to Muhammadans of the class described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this article ".

Rule 2 provided for elections to the board of trustees and for the election of a member of the board of trustees as secretary to the said board and for the entry by such secretary in a minute book of the proceedings of every meeting of the congregation of the mosque.

Rule 3 (a) provided that-

" (a) The Board of Trustees shall within twenty-one days from the date of their appointment or f











































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