SK. RAHIMBUX, Vs. SAHEB JAMAL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four second appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment of mine. Second Appeal No. 288/51 arises out of Title Suit No. 852/1947 where the Plaintiffs, Saheb Jamal Khan, Sk. Naziruddin (who are Respondents before me) prayed for a declaration that they are the Mutwallis of a mosque situate in mouza Maheswarpur in the subdivision of Jajpur, and further that they have got the exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin of the mosque. The Plaintiffs further went on to state that the Mohammedan public of the locality in defiance of their exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin had appointed Defendants 9 and 10 (Sk. Mahiuddin Raheman and Sk. Raitulla) as Peshimam and Muazin respectively. The Plaintiffs prayed for removal of these two persons on a declaration that their appointment was invalid. The Plaintiffs had brought two other suits (Money Suits Nos. 204 and 578 of 1947) out of which Second Appeals 284 and 286 arose. In the Money Suits the Plaintiff -mutwallis claimed damages against the Defendants in those on the allegation that they had cut and removed s e branches of palm trees and also removed cocoanuts from the trees belonging to the mosque. The Mohammedan public of the locality had brought a counter suit (O.S. No. 31/48) out of which Second Appeal 285/51 arises for a declaration that the Plaintiff In the other suit, are not the mutwallis of the mosque and that Defendants No. 9 and 10 have been validly appointed by the public as Peshimam and Muazin respectively and that they are not liable for eviction or removal. All the four suits were tried together.

(2.) THE lower appellate Court rightly starts with the observation that the only point for consideration in all these suits is whether the Plaintiff -Respondents are the mutwallis, and as such, they have exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin.

(3.) REGARDING the findings of the Courts below that the Plaintiffs in T.S. No. 352/47 are the mutwallis of the mosque who actually managed the mosque and the mosque properties for a very long time, they have relied upon quite a number of documents filed by the parties. The successive settlements' records of rights support the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs themselves and their predecessors were the mutwallis ever since the year 1899. The settlement records find sufficient support with reference to the subsequent events transpiring from the registered sale -deeds (Exts.9 and 11 to 14), the earliest being of the year 1914, that the properties were acquired In the name of the mosque through the Plaintiff -Respondents or their ancestors as the mutwallis of the mosqu. It transpires also from the series of rent receipts (Exts. 10, 16, and 17) that the Plaintiff -Respondents have all along been paying rentals of the lands owned by the mosque. The account papers also support the case of the Plaintiffs. In my view, the Courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that in fact the Plaintiffs and their predecessors -in -interest were the mutwallis actually managing the properties of the mosque ever since 1899. The Courts below have also considered and rejected the evidentiary value of the documents filed by the defence as not being consistent with their case.