AMIN IBRAHIM Vs. SAYED G JAMALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A religious Masjid located in Hadapsar in Pune District has prominently figured in these proceedings. It has been registered with the Charity Commissioner, Pune Region under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (shortly stated as the "Act"), in the name of Masjid Hadapsar, Taluka Haveli, Trust", which event occurred in the year 1952. The said Masjid shall be referred to as the suit "Trust". Initially 8 persons were appointed as trustees and managers to look after the said Mosque. The four appellants herein are amongst group of the said 8 trustees, though unfortunately the remaining four trustees died from time to time. Leaving behind in the field only the present appellants in that capacity and it may be incidently observed at this juncture itself that no attempt was made by them to fill up those vacancies. Thus, the number continued to be four, though it was necessary to be eight. The mode of succession to trusteeship and managership was prescribed by nomination by the jamat. The dominant object of the trust is claimed to be nomination by the jamat. The dominant object of the trust is claimed to be the maintenance and upkeep of the Masjid as also performance of religious rites and offer facilities to the religious-minded people who visit the mosque to offer their prayers. It is clear that the Trust properties consist of a Mosque and a Kabrastan which are located in City Survey No. 530 having corresponding Municipal No. 158 within the limits of Hadapsar and it also includes a building adjacent to the said Mosque which building was formerly used as an education institution, being Urdu School. It is further claimed that in addition to these properties, the Trust possesses and owns two agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 74 and 75 which were initially granted as Inam in ancient time by Badshah Alamgir. It is alleged by the first three respondents herein, who are the original plaintiffs. That several acts of omission and commission amounting to misconduct are attributable to the said four trustees. The break up of those items are five in number.

(2.) In effect it is contended that though the said two survey numbers were granted to the Trust as Deosthan Inam land the said trustees treated both the lands as of their private ownership and even effected partition into 72 sub-plots and they have been appropriating the income of the said lands to their own personal benefit. The second item pertains to two sale instances effected on March 2, 1968 without obtaining the necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner and appropriating the sale proceeds for their own use. Those relate to sub-plots from the said two survey numbers. The third item mentions that the premises in a building adjoining the Mosque have been unauthorisedly rented out to the tenants for their residences, the income of which is also appropriated by the trustees and the second plank of this allegation is that this would hurt the religious feelings as residence of a family near the Mosque is contrary to the tenets of the Muslim religion. The fourth item relates to non-rendering of the accounts throughout and also misappropriation of large amount. The last item pertains to not appointing of four more trustees to make the total number as eight as so prescribed.

(3.) The plaintiffs claim that they are persons interested in the Trust since not only they have faith in the religion but they physically visit the Mosque to offer prayers. They, therefore, moved the Charity Commissioner by an Application No. 20 of 1971 alleging misconduct against the said four trustees and their acting diverse to the interests of the Trusts, and asked for the consent to file a suit for the appropriate reliefs as required under the law.