1. The defendant was sued on behalf of a mosque for the recovery of the rent of the site of a shop. The defendant's shop is situated on land belonging to the mosque, and the defendant's liability to pay rent is admitted. The question in dispute is as to whether the plaintiff who puts himself forward as the manager of the mosque property is entitled to sue and recover the money. The plaintiff is the secretary of a society known as the 'Anjuman Intizamia Masjid' in Benares, and it appears that the association looks after the management of several mosques in that city. It is in evidence that this association has in the past recovered rent for the sites of shops from parjautdars and has carried on with the money the management of the mosque. In 1922 the society got itself registered. On behalf of the defence it was suggested that there was a rival body which managed the mosque and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the parjaut. The relevant observations of the lower appellate Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff after reversing the decree of the trial Court are:
In the present case the plaintiff has admitted that he cannot say how the Anjuman has got the title to manage the mosque in dispute. All that can be claimed is that the Anjuman has been managing the mosque since 1912 for some years. Since that time however, and after the period of registration.
2. (in 1922):
the parjautdars appear to have taken matters into their own hands and have set up a counter management. I am of opinion that in the present case when the plaintiff comes to enforce a right he must prove his title up to the hilt.
3. This does not appear to be the correct view of looking at the rights of a person or a body suing on behalf of a Muhammadan religious trust. It has been held by this Court in Muiz-ud-din v. Mohammad Ikhlaq A.I.R. 1924 All. 59 that a de facto mutwalli of a trust is entitled to remain in possession of the trust property and to recover the profits of the trust. This pronouncement was followed by the Madras High Court in a Single Judge decision in the case of Mahomed Ibrahim v. Sundaram Chetti : AIR1926Mad1066 . In another Madras case of 1926 Moideen Bibi v. Rathanevelu Mudali A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 69 a Bench of two Judges accepted the dictum of the Allahabad High Court that de facto mutwallis of mosques were well known to the law. In 1913; a Bench of the same High Court laid down that a de facto trustee of a mosque had a right not only to reimburse himself of all expenses properly incurred by him just like a de jure trustee, but further that he was entitled to remain in possession of the trust property until he was reimbursed in respect of all proper charges incurred by him: Kaliba v. Soran Bivi  38 Mad. 260. There is thus a large volume of authority in favour of a de facto mutwalli being entitled to act on behalf of a trust without being put to proof of his antecedents and the origin of his authority to manage the trust.
4. The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff is or is not a de facto trustee. In my opinion he is. He started management in 1912, and the association on behalf of the parjautdars is more recent. The plaintiff's association is a registered body while the other association is not. When it is desired by the defendant and other parjautdars to displace a de facto manager their only remedy lies in taking action under Section 92, Civil P.C, and the lower appellate Court was not correct in the view that the responsibility lay on the plaintiff Anjuman to take proceedings under Section 92. The amount in dispute is small, so there is no necessity to pass any order to insure the use of the money for the purposes of the mosque.
5. I set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the trial Court with costs of all the Courts.