S N HASAN ABUBUCKER Vs. KOTTIKULAM ST MOHIDEEN PALLIVASAL THERKKU MOHINDEEN PALLIVASAL NIRVAGI MUTHERU COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirunelveli in A.S.No.67 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the learned Additional District Munsif, Thirunelveli, in O.S.No.467 of 1982. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed for a declaration that Melapalayam Rahmania High School, belonged to the plaintiff/ Pallivasal and that the first defendant should hand over the administration of the School to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the High School belongs to Pallivasal and was established 80 years prior to the suit by collection of funds from the members of Jamath. THE School is being conducted in the property at No.35 belonging to the plaintiff in the same street. Since then the members of Jamath had been providing funds for the administration of Pallivasal and also the School through the Pallivasal. For the purpose of administering the properties belonging to Pallivasal, a Committee was constituted (THErku Mohideen Pallivasal Mutheru Committee) and registered on 22.11.1958 and the said Committee is in charge of the administration of the properties including the school. When the school was at the stage of an elementary school, Hasan Abu Bucker, grandfather of the defendant was the Muthavalli and he was also the Manager and the Correspondent of the School. After his death, his son (father of the first defendant) Syed Thamim Sahib was appointed as the Manager of the School. During his period, the School was upgraded to a High School under the control of the Committee. He died in the year 1956 and the Educational Authorities recognised the first defendant as the Manager and Correspondent. THE Committee was representing the Educational Authorities that the School should be registered as belonging to Pallivasal. By a communication dated 1.7.1981 the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, had informed the Committee to obtain appropriate orders from the Civil Court. A legal notice was issued in this context to the first defendant on 10.3.1982 to which by letter dated 15.3.1982 the first defendant sent a reply claiming that the School was his ancestral property and the plaintiff has no manner of any right over the school. Hence, the suit. Since the property was Wakf property, Wakf Board was impleaded as the second defendant. THE first defendant has absolutely no right over the property. THE rental amount of the building which was paid as a grant by the Government was paid to the plaintiff. THE first defendant was bound to hand over the management of the school to the plaintiff.

(3.) I have heard both Senior Counsel representing the appellant and the respondents. Very detailed submissions were made by both sides quoting extensively from the evidence in an attempt to establish their respective contentions. From the very nature of the points which arise for consideration, it is very obvious that the issues relate only to appreciation of evidence of fact as to whether- the school was established by Pallivasal by collecting funds from the members of Jamath or whether the school was established and founded by grandfather of the plaintiff. Viewed from any angle the issue is only a factual issue and nothing more. The said findings are normally binding under Section 100 C.P.C. unless and otherwise there has been any omission to consider any vital evidence or appreciation of evidence is so un reasonable and perverse enough to warrant interference.