SYED ANWAR BATCHA SAHIB AND OTHERS Vs. JAMIA MASJID MOSQUE, KARUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MUTAVALLI HAJI K. V. GANAIAPPA ROWTHER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of five suits filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Karur, and can be dealt with together. The main question for determination in these appeals is the character of certain properties, viz., whether they are inam granted to Jamia Masjid Mosque, Karur or are personal inams burdened with Kazi service. The properties in dispute were originally granted as inams. The Jamia Masjid Mosque claims that they are grants to the mosque, whereas according to Kazi Syed Abdullah Batcha, they are inams granted to his ancestors burdened with service. Syed Abdullah Batcha's father, Syed Ahmed Batcha, was the Mutavalli of the mosque and was also the Kazi appointed by the Government from 14th December, 1928 to 24th April, 1948. There were disputes between the Muslim residents of Karur and one Ganaiappa Rowther was appointed the Mutavalli of the mosque, and one Abdul Rahiman as Kazi on salaried based. Syed Abdullah Batcha claimed that the grans was a personal inam in favour of his ancestor burdened with the duty of performing the Kazr service and the mutavalli of the mosque could have no right whatsoever regarding the properties. Ganaippa Rowther in his capacity as Mutavalli of the mosque filed O. S. No. 118 of 1960 in the Court of the District Munsif of Karur, from which S. A. No. 1924 of 1962 arises, impleading the heirs of Syed Ahmed Batcha and others as defendants and prayed for recovery of Rs. 1,157 -2 -0 as arrears of rent due to the mosque. Syed Abdullah Batcha instituted three suits O. S. Nos. 322, 345 and 485 of 1960 out of which S. A. Nos. 1926, 1928 and 1925 of 1962, arise, against three tenants for recovery of certain amounts either as rent or as damages for use and occupation. The defendants in these three suits set up title in the mosque represented by the Mutavalli, Ganaiappa Rowther, O. S. No. 218 of 1960 out of which S. A. No. 1927 of 1962 arises, was filed by Syed Abdullah Batcha for a declaration that the notification issued by the Wakf Board that the properties constituted wakf, was illegal and ultra vires.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit O. S. No. 118 of 1960 filed by Ganaiappa Rowther but decreed the suits, O. S. Nos. 322, 345, 485 and 218 of 1960 filed by Syed Abdullah Batcha. Appeals were preferred before the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, against the decrees and judgments in the above five suits, and the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli. allowed all the five appeals, decreeing the suit O. S. No. 118 of 1960 filed by Ganaiappa Rowther and dismissing the suits, O. S. Nos. 322, 345, 485 and 218 of 1960 filed by Syed Abdullah Batcha. Against the judgments and decrees of the lower appellate Court, these second appeals have been preferred.

(3.) The main question that arises in these second appeals S. A. Nos. 1924, 1926, 1928, 1925 and 1927 of 1962 is whether the giant is in favour of the mosque or whether it is a personal grant in favour of Syed Abdullah Batcha's ancestors burdened with service. The question will have to be decided mainly on the extracts of the inam registers Ex. A. 18 and A. 1. Ex. A. 18 was filed in O. S. 118 of 1960 and it is a certified copy of the inam register regarding title deed No. 1555 relating to the disputed lands in inam Karur village, whereas Ex. A. 1 filed in O. S. No. 218 of 1960 is a certified copy of the inam register regarding title deed No. 1285 in L. N. Samudram village. The entries in the inam fair register Ex. A. 18 may be dealt with first. In Column 2 the inam is described as "Dharmadaya". Column 8 describes the imam as "Kazi service". In Column 10 the entry is noted as "permanent". Against Column 11 "by whom granted" it is entered "By Krishna Raja Udaya". The name of the original grantee is noted as not known in Column 13. In Column 14, dealing with the name entered in the register prepared according to Regulation 31 of 1802, it is recorded " In fasli 1214, Namadullah." In Column 15 dealing with the name entered in the survey of subsequent accounts with relationship to the predecessors, it is noted as follows: