CHENICHERI PANDARA VALAPPIL MUSTHAFA Vs. XX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is one for declaration of title of the plaintiff's Tarwad over the plaint schedule Makham, and for prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its management.

(2.) The plaint schedule property is Makham. The plaintiff claims that the plaint schedule property belongs to his family as per Ext.A1 partition deed dtd. 4/2/1943, and that in Ext.A1 partition deed, the plaint schedule Makham is kept in common for worship by the Tarwad members. The plaintiff alleges that the plaint schedule was forcibly taken possession of by the defendants who are the President and Secretary of a Muslim Welfare Association. It is accordingly that the suit is filed. The defendants contended that the plaint schedule property was part of a larger extent of property acquired by the Government in the year 1973 in connection with construction of an approach road and bridge. A sec. of the Muslim community got the plaint schedule property back from the Government, it being a place of worship, and ever since it is owned and managed by the Muslim Welfare Association represented by the defendants. The plaintiff nor his family have any right over the plaint schedule property, is the contention.

(3.) The suit was originally decreed concurrently by the trial and first appellate courts. In SA 201/1998 filed by the defendants, the decree and judgment were set aside and the suit was remanded back to the trial court for disposal de novo. Thereafter, the suit was decreed by the trial court. The trial court held against the title of the plaintiff. It further directed the defendant, to reconstitute the Managing Committee in the manner stated therein, including a representative of the plaintiff's family also. Dissatisfied by the decree, the plaintiff filed AS 103/2000 before the District Court. However, the District Court interfered with the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the suit holding it to be barred under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is challenging the same, that the present appeal has been preferred.