R P AHAMMADKUTTY HAJI Vs. VATTAKANDY AHAMMADKUTTY HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in regard to the right of management of a Mosque once settled' between the parties has escalated to this Court on the question of interpretation of the settlement itself. The Poonoor Madathumpoyli Mosque was being managed by a Committee consisting of 10 members. The Committee took a decision on 9-12-1975 to frame and adopt a constitution for the proper management of the Mosque. A constitution was accordingly adopted by the Committee and the same was registered under the Societies Registration Act as the rules and bye-laws for the management of the Mosque. As per a resolution of the Committee dated 23-1-1977 the existing Committee was dissolved and a new Committee of management was to be constituted as per the rules and byelaws under the constitution adopted by the Committee. It is at this stage that the 3rd defendant filed a suit O. S. No. 45 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perambra for an in-junction restraining the plaintiff and others from managing the mosque. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted s suit in the Munsiff's Court, Quilandy, which on transfer was numbered as O. S. No. 14 of 1978 of the Munsiff's Court, Perambra, for an Injunction against the defendants from interfering with the management of the mosque by the Committee of which the plaintiff is the president. The parties settled the dispute as per a compromise petition I. A. No. 192 of 1978 filed on 31-5-1978, As per the terms of the compromise the parties agreed as to the area of the mahal of the mosque. Both parties were to prepare a list of members of the mahal and entrust the same to a receiver to be appointed in the suit and if there is any dispute in regard to the list of members of the mahal the same is to be reported by the receiver to the Court for decision. There were two draft constitutions submitted by the plaintiff and the defendants for the management of the mosque. The receiver was to convene a general body meeting of the members of the mahal giving them one week's notice. Both the draft constitutions submitted by the contesting parties were to be read over at the public meeting of the members of the mahal and the general body is to choose either of the constitutions by secret ballot. Thereafter a committee is to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the constitution adopted by the general body to be in charge of the administration and management of the mosque. According to both the draft constitutions submitted by the parties the heads of families in the mahal are to constitute the general body of members under the constitution. But to decide which of the two constitutions is to be adopted, the decision should be of the majority of members of the mahal (original in Malayalam omitted- -- Ed.) to be ascertained by a process of election by secret ballot. The election is to be conducted by the receiver or some other person deputed for that purpose by the court. The court on 31-5-1978 itself passed an order recording the compromise and appointing a Commissioner to implement the terms set out therein. Both parties submitted lists of members of the mahal to the Commissioner for the purpose of convening a meeting of the general body to adopt either the one or the other of the draft constitutions submitted for approval by the general body. The list submitted by the plaintiff contained the names of all the major members of the mahal, but the defendants' list took in only the heads of families resident in the mahal. Since there was dispute between the parties as to the personnel of the general body entitled to vote at the meeting, the Commissioner as per his report dated 14-7-1978 sought directions of court as to whether the general body of the members of the mahal should consist of all major members or only the heads of families resident in the mahal, The court on the report of the Commissioner gave a direction to constitute a committee of 4 elders, two from each group, with the Commissioner as Chairman of the Committee to scrutinise the eligibility of each voter from the lists submitted by both the parties, and in case of disagreement between the parties to make a specific reference to the court for decision on merits. The defendants filed I. A. No. 332 of 1978 for a review of this direction given by the court on the Commissioner's report. The review application was allowed and the learned munsiff passed a fresh order holding that the heads of families alone are recognised as members of the mahal and they alone will constitute the general body entitled to vote at the meeting to adopt one or the other of the two draft constitutions submitted by the parties to the suit. Dissatisfied by the direction of the learned munsiff, the plaintiff appealed to the Sub Court, Badagara. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal as not maintainable holding that the subject matter of the appeal is extra cursus curiae. It is against this that the plaintiff has come up in revision.

(2.) The question is whether the court below is right in rejecting the appeal as relating to a matter extra cursus curiae. Both the parties have accepted the compromise recorded in the suit. There is no appeal against the order passed recording the compromise. The only dispute in the present proceedings is in regard to the interpretation of the terms of the compromise. In other words, the dispute is only with respect to the enforcement of the compromise decree passed in the suit. Such a matter cannot be construed as extra eursus curiae.

(3.) In the decision reported in Net! Venkata Somayajulu v. Adusumilli Ven-kanna (AIR 1934 Mad 397) after a discussion of the case law on the subject it is stated as follows: