MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. K A PARYARYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A philanthropist by name Kunhammad Haji, made a gift of bis land to a registered society in the year 1970. But after his death the subject matter of the gift unfortunately became the subject matter in two litigations including the present one, though the extent of the land is only 20.75 cents. The donee is the Muslim Educational Society which is popularly known by the initial letters of its three words M.E.S.

(2.) As per Ext.A1 gift deed, the donor Kunhammad Haji donated the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant (M. E. S.). A building was constructed on the said land wherein a hospital was housed for some time. When the society found it difficult to pull on with the hospital due to variety of causes, its office bearers resolved to use the building for accommodating another institution by name "Industrial Training Centre", which hitherto was functioning in a distant place (Kuttiadi). At that stage one T. K. Pariyayi who is a close relative of the donor, filed a suit in the Sub Court, Badagara as O. S. No. 95 of 1982 to restrain the society from using the building for any purpose other than running a hospital. But the said suit happened to be dismissed in 1982 itself. Thereafter the respondents herein instituted the present suit after obtaining leave under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 1st plaintiff is said to be the grandson of the donor Kunhammad Haji and the other plaintiffs are residents of the village where the property is situated. The main relief sought for in the suit is a declaration that the 1st defendant has a legal duty to use the suit property to run a hospital by name "Thaikandiyil Aniyapravan Kunhammad Haji Hospital" and the ancillary relief is to restrain the 1st defendant by a perpetual injunction from using the suit property for any other purpose.

(3.) The plaintiff's case in the plaint, in brief, is that by Ext.A1 gift deed a trust has been created for the sole object of establishing and running a hospital as a charitable institution, and that the society did start such an institution, but later they abandoned it and now they propose to start another institution in the building situated in the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the society has no authority to change the purpose for which the trust itself was created. The defendants, in their joint written statement, contended that no trust has been created by Ext.A1, and that the society in fact started a hospital in the suit property but the hospital had to be closed down due to various odds, and the building eventually became a rendezvous for antisocial elements of the locality, and so another institution (The Industrial Training Centre) run by the society at Kuttiadi was shifted to this building.