N R ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. E SUNDARESA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a dilapidated mosque like structure in S.No.187 of Sheik Manyam Vanagaram village, Saidapet, Chinglepet District. This building with the land appurtenant thereto measuring about 17,000 sq.ft. south of cart track, north of poramboke land, east part of S.No.187 and west of tank is the subject matter of the second appeal. The S.No.187 before sub division comprised of an extent of 51 acres 17 cents. Ex.B-3 the from the Registrar of Inams in the Village of Vanakaram discloses that this extent originally granted to one Kayarunnissa as a personal Inam. Subsequently one Mohammed Abdul Khadi Basha Sahib became the owner of this property. Under Ex.B 23.9.1898 he settled this land in favour of his minor son Mohammed Habibulla Basha The donee sold away the property to one Anniah Naidu under Ex.B-5 the registered dated 15.3.1917. Subsequently Anniah Naidu became insolvent and this property was the Official Assignee of the High Court in favour of one Jaganathan under Ex.B-6 the conveyance dated 1.5.1919. Jaganathan also became insolvent and Elumalai Chettiar of the respondent herein purchased this property from Official Assignee under Ex.B deed dated 31.10.1935. After the demise of Elumalai Chettiar there was partition family under Ex.B-8 dated 9.3.1960. THERE is no dispute that in this partition the respondent was allotted S.No.187/ 1 measuring 24 acres and 63 cents while an extent acres and 17 cents in S.No. 187/3 came to the share of his brother. During the Sub the remaining extent which is a channel was marked as S.No.187/2.

(2.) THE appellants claiming that the decrepit structure is an ancient mosque of more years old wherein the Muslims of that locality were offering worship, that in one part said mosque they bury their dead for the past 200 years and more and that all of the defendant-respondent has prevented them from saying their prayers in that instituted O.S.No.674 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif of Poona-mallee on themselves and Muslim worshippers for an injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from preventing their offering worship.

(3.) THE trial court found that the structure in dispute was not used by the Muslims as a of worship before the institution of the suit. THE plaintiffs were not in possession of property before the suit came to be filed. THE adjoining site is not a public graveyard of Muslims. Accordingly it dismissed the suit with cost. THE appeal preferred by the plaintiffs A.S.No.51 of 1982 before the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput also met with the same Having lost in both the courts below the plaintiffs have come forward . with this second appeal.