Skip to content


Noor Mahammad Saib and ors. Vs. Karima Bibi Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad687(1); 25Ind.Cas.559
AppellantNoor Mahammad Saib and ors.
RespondentKarima Bibi Ammal and ors.
Cases Referred and Dasondhay v. Muhammad Abu Nasar
Excerpt:
mosque properties - suit for possession by worshippers, maintainability of. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence......1. the lower courts seem to have rightly held that a suit for possession of the mosque properties could not be maintained by the worshippers in their individual or collective capacity, as that principle of law seems to be derivable from the observations in strinivasa ayyangar v. strinivasa swami 16 m. 31, kamaraju v. asanali sheriff 23 m. 99 and dasondhay v. muhammad abu nasar 11 ind. cas. 36 : 33 a. 660 : 8 a.l.j. 710. the plaintiffs have not established that by muhammadan law the worshippers as a body can be collective mutawallis of the plaint mosque and we are further unable to hold that the suit is brought by the plaintiffs in this case as trustees and not as merely belonging to and representing the community of worshippers.2. we dismiss this second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The lower Courts seem to have rightly held that a suit for possession of the mosque properties could not be maintained by the worshippers in their individual or collective capacity, as that principle of law seems to be derivable from the observations in Strinivasa Ayyangar v. Strinivasa Swami 16 M. 31, Kamaraju v. Asanali Sheriff 23 M. 99 and Dasondhay v. Muhammad Abu Nasar 11 Ind. Cas. 36 : 33 A. 660 : 8 A.L.J. 710. The plaintiffs have not established that by Muhammadan Law the worshippers as a body can be collective mutawallis of the plaint mosque and we are further unable to hold that the suit is brought by the plaintiffs in this case as trustees and not as merely belonging to and representing the community of worshippers.

2. We dismiss this second appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //