MUHAMMAD JAFAR Vs. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This suit is brought under the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863. As regards the second defendant the suit does not lie under the Act and as against him it must be dismissed, Sivayyav. Rami Reddi I.L.R. 22 Mad. 223.
(2.) As regards the first defendant, it has been argued on his behalf that no suit lies inasmuch as the plaintiffs ask for a declaration and Section 14 of the Act does not, in terms, confer upon the Civil Court jurisdiction to make a declaration. The first defendant relied on the decision of this Court in Mahalinga Rau V/s. Vencoba Ghosami I.L.R.4 Mad. 157. In that case, however, there was no claim for the removal of the manager. In the present case the plaintiffs ask for the removal of the manager and their prayer for a declaration is introductory or ancillary to that claim. Upon this ground the present case is distinguishable from the case of Mahalinga Rau V/s. Vencoba Ghosami I.L.R. 4 Mad. 157.
(3.) The fact that the inam which is the source from which the expenses of the mosque have been mainly defrayed is described in exhibit C as "devadayam" shows beyond question that the mosque is a public mosque and not the private property of the first defendant. In the face of this evidence the defendant's vakil did not attempt to support the finding of the District Judge that the mosque is not a public mosque.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.