THEKKETHODIKA MAMMADUNNI Vs. ADANGALPURAVAN ALAVIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Juma Masjid Mosque and Hidayathul Madrassa situated in Perakkamanna village in Eranadu Taluk, unfortunately, became the subject-matters in a dispute between two factions of the Muslim community of the said village. One faction is called the 'Sunnis' and the other is called the 'Mujahids'. When the dispute reached an explosive situation the police feared imminent and severe breach of the peace. Hence the local police intervened and initiated prosecution proceedings against the members of the rival factions. Later they filed a report for taking preventive steps against some persons and on the basis of the said report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Perintalmanna commenced proceedings under S.145(1) Criminal P.C. (for short 'the Code'). He arrayed some of the members of the rival factions into two groups, one group in the A Party, and the other in the B Party and directed them as per his preliminary order to attend his Court on a date specified therein to file written statements and documents in support of their rival claims with regard to the possession of the said buildings. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a further order under S.146(1) of the Code attaching the buildings involved in these proceedings and appointed the local village officer as the Receiver. Those two orders are under challenge hereby the first named person in the A Party.

(2.) The dispute arose between the two wings on the use of Malayalam language during the delivery of 'Kuthuba' (sermon) in the 'Juma' worship offered on all Fridays. The A Party adopted the stand that worship and the discourse should be in Arabic only. On the other hand the B Party contended that though the delivery of Kuthuba can be in Arabic, its Malayalam rendering also should be separately delivered. This was not acceptable to the A Party. The aforesaid dispute grew wider in course of time and members of the each faction began treating the other as rivals or even enemies and consequently, criminal cases had to be registered by the police against some of those members.

(3.) Sri Sujunapalan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the dispute in this case is only regarding the right of user of the Mosque and the Madrassa, proceedings could have been initiated only under S.147 of the Code. If it is so, according to the learned counsel, the attachment under S.146 of the Code would be without jurisdiction. In support of his contention learned counsel referred me to the decision reported in Ahammedkutty v. Kunjavaran, 1967 Ker LT 391. A Single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider a dispute which is almost similar to the one involved in this case between two rival parties in respect of a Mosque. It was held that in such circumstances the proper section that should apply is S.147 and not S.145. Consequently, this Court set aside the order of attachment passed under S.146 of the Code.