Skip to content


Syed FaizuddIn Ali and anr. Vs. Mirza Iyahiya Siraji and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Cal583,91Ind.Cas.352
AppellantSyed FaizuddIn Ali and anr.
RespondentMirza Iyahiya Siraji and anr.
Excerpt:
religious endowments act (xx of 1863), section 4 - suit for declaration that resolutions passed at certain meeting are invalid, nature, of--jurisdiction of court. - .....two other members forming the committee for a declaration that resolutions passed at certain meeting held on the 3rd august, 2nd october and 25th october 1920 are ultra vires and invalid. the findings of fact are all against the defendants. it has been found that the notice given by defendants nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff of the meeting that was to be held on the 3rd august 1920 was not proper, inasmuch as there was no agenda of the business to be done at the meeting, sent with the notice. the learned judge, therefore, held that the resolutions arrived at the meeting of the 3rd august are invalid. similarly, it is found that the other two meetings were also not legally held.2. the findings of fact are conclusive and no question can be addressed to us, on behalf of the appellants.....
Judgment:

B.B. Ghose, J.

1. This was a suit brought by one member of a Committee of a religious endowment governed by the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863 against two other members forming the Committee for a declaration that resolutions passed at certain meeting held on the 3rd August, 2nd October and 25th October 1920 are ultra vires and invalid. The findings of fact are all against the defendants. It has been found that the notice given by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff of the meeting that was to be held on the 3rd August 1920 was not proper, inasmuch as there was no agenda of the business to be done at the meeting, sent with the notice. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the resolutions arrived at the meeting of the 3rd August are invalid. Similarly, it is found that the other two meetings were also not legally held.

2. The findings of fact are conclusive and no question can be addressed to us, on behalf of the appellants with regard to this. The only question that was urged before us was that having regard to Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act the Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the first instance, and special reliance was placed upon the phrase 'neglect of duty' contained in Section 14 of that Act. In our opinion, this was not a suit for neglect of duty by any person with regard to a religious endowment. It was an ordinary suit for declaration that resolutions passed at meeting were invalid on account of proper notice not being given to a member of the Committee. The case, therefore, comes under the ordinary law and the Munsif, in our opinion, had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. This point failing, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Greaves, J.

4. I agree.


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