SYED AHAMED MOHIDEEN Vs. MOHAMED ZAINULABUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these second appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. Defendants 13, 14, I5 and 19 in O. S. No. 3696 of 1972 on the file of the Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court , Madras, are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 650 of 1981 and defendants 5 and 6 in the said suit are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 894 of 1981. The facts are as under:

(2.) THE dispute relates to the right of management in respect of Saint Syed Moosa Shah Kadiri Darga in Madras, One Syed Mohideen sahib was in management. He had two sons by name Syed Ismail Sahib and Syed gulam Dasthagir Sahib. THE right iof management was divided between the two sons, each taking six months. This was on the basis of a judgment of this Court in C. S. No. 116 of 1909. THE plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 19 belonged to the branch of Syed Gulam Dasthagir, whose right of management was in the months of February, March, June, July, October, and November. On the death of Syed Gulam Dasthagir, the right of management and possession of the darga devolved on his two sons, Syed Gaffer and Syed Mohideen, as well as a daughter by name Fathima Bi, in accordance with the Mohammedan Law. All the three were in management and possession of the Darga. THE expenses used to be met out of the hundial collections in the Darga and the balance was appropriated by the said three persons. THE plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the second defendant are the son and two daughters of Fathima Bi. THEy were associating themselves with their maternal uncles and their sons in the management of the darga and Were in receipt of their share of the income. However, recently the first defendant, the maternal uncle, and the sixth defendant, a son of another maternal uncle, are preventing the plaintiffs from exercising their lawful rights with regard to their share in the management and receipt of the income. Even though a notice was sent calling upon them not to obstruct, they sent a reply stating that Fatima Bi being a woman was not entitled to any right whatever and even if she had any, the same had become barred by limitation. Those pleas are untenable. THE right of all the family members, including women, to participate in the management has been recognised by several Court proceedings. Under these circumstances it has become necessary to file the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the management and possession of the Darga for a period of 27 days in the year during the above said six months. Further, there is also a prayer for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the said right.

(3.) THE learned Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court , Madras, on trial, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had established their right and granted a decree for declaration and injunction.