AMJADULLA SIDDIQUI Vs. MIRZA NIZAMUDDIN BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three revision petitions and the four C. M. Ps. can be disposed of under a common order. They arise in the following circumstances:

(2.) O. S. No. 750/73 was instituted by the Jumma Masjid, represented by the Muttavalli Abdul Rahim, for eviction of the tenant, Sri Radha Krishna Rice Mill. It was decreed by the trial Court. The tenant-rice mill filed A. S. No. 480/76 in this court. Pending the appeal. Abdul Rahim died in Karachi, Pakistan, in the year 1978. Thereupon the appellant-tenant filed C. M. P. 3635/78 for bringing on record one Abdul Gafoor as the Mutavalli and legal representative of Abdul Rahim. Before this petition was ordered, Abdul Gafoor also died in a plane accident on 19-8-1980. Thereupon, the appellant-tenant filed C. M. P. 18141/80 to bring on record Mohiuddin Ali Khan as Muttavalli of the plaintiff mosque. While this petition was pending a compromise was arrived at between the tenant-appellant and the mosque, which was also approved by the Government. Thereupon C. M. P. 2659/81 was filed by the appellant-tenant and the mosque represented by Mohiuddin Ali Khan, who claimed to be the Muttavalli of the mosque, for recording the compromise arrived at between them.

(3.) Yet another petition, C. M. P. 3300/78 was filed meanwhile by one Abdul Khuddus Ali to bring him on record as the legal representative of late Abdul Rahim. He claimed that he has been nominated as the Muttavalli under a will executed by Abdul Rahim and therefore, he is entitled to act as Muttavalli. All the four petitions came up before us and by our order dated 17-3-1981, we allowed C. M. P. 18141/80 and impleaded Mohiuddin Ali Khan in the place of deceased Abdul Rahim as Muttavalli of the plaintiff-mosque, on the basis of an order of the Wakf Board, appointing him as the Muttavalli temporarily C. M. P. No. 3635/78 had become unnecessary because Abdul Gafoor, who was sought to be brought on record therein as Muttavalli, had himself died pending the petition. C. M. P. No. 3300/78 was dismissed by us observing that it shall be open to the petitioner in the said C. M. P., to establish his rights before a civil Court or other appropriate forum, as the case may be. Having done so, we recorded the compromise as requested in C. M. P. 2659/81 and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.