SHAIK MASTHAN SAHIB Vs. PALAYANI BALARAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the parties in the second appeal agree that this appeal may be posted before a Bench of two Judges. The only ground for the joint request is that the value of the property involved in the second appeal is more than Rs. 50,000. If the appeal is heard by a single Judge and leave to prefer the Letters Patent appeal is refused they an afraid that they will not have an opportunity to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. The relevant rule of the Appellate Side Rules is rule (I) Chapter I, Part II which reads thus:

(2.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal, which is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nellore, in A. S. No. 215 Of 1947 against O. S. No. 301 of 1938 on the 01e of the District Munsif's Court of Kavall

(3.) THE respondent contested the suit on various grounds. In his written statement, the respondent admitted the execution deed Ex, III in favour of his wife by Rahamatulla Sahib and the appointment of Rahamtullah Sahib in 1923 as trustee, but contended that the appellant was not appoint ed a hereditary trustee, under the deed dated 1 -5 -1926, that at the time the deed was executed, the appellant was a minor and the appointment was therefore invalid. The respondent further contended that the appellant did not take charge and did not function as a hereditary trustee and that even otherwise, the appellant had been properly removed from the office under powers validly reserved in that behalf of the late Rahamatullah Sahib, the founder of the trust. The further points taken by the respondent in his written statement were that the appellant was not a member of the committee referred to in the plaint and that the late Rahamatulla Sahib did not acknowledge the appellant's rights as a trustee of the mosque and that the appellant did not continue to be a trustee after the notice issued by the committee dated 6 -5 -1933, that the document dated 12 -12 -1933 which was executed in favour of the respondent himself was a valid document and an operative one and that there was no fraud or collusion in respect thereof and that the respondent was the proper person appointed and entitled to be the trustee of the mosque.