GH MOHD Vs. AB GANI GANAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am glad that the Sub -Registrar Munsiff has drawn a well -reasoned order, and I do not find any reason to take a different view from the one that he has taken. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the defendants raised a plea that the suit land was in possession of a mosque and that the suit for perpetual injunction was not competent. It was further pleaded that the proper course for the plaintiff was to bring in a suit for possession. It is a fact that in case the defendants succeed in proving that the land in question is in possession of a mosque, a suit for perpetual injunction will not lie, and the proper course for the plaintiff would in that case to be to sue for possession.

(2.) BUT it needs some inquiry before it can be established as to whether or not the land is in possession of the mosque. If it is established that the possession over the land is of the mosque, in that case the only course open for the plaintiffs, as already stated would be to bring in a suit for possession against the mosque. But here the case is quite different. The plaintiff alleges that the land in question is in his possession and the defendants commit interference and trespass necessitating the bringing in of a suit for injunction, to restrain them from committing interference. It is argued before me that the defendants have no personal interest in the land in Question, and that they are holding the land on behalf of the mosque which in the submission of the learned counsel would make it necessary that the mosque also should be impleaded as a party. I do not deny that a mosque has the right to own property, but I do certainly deny that a mosque by itself can cause interference in the possession of anybody in this world. A mosque can no doubt hold property through a Mutwali, but if a Mutwalli chooses to interfere in the possession of anybody or commits trespass, it would be personal act of his with which the mosque has no connection whatsoever. In such a case the relief to be sought will be against the person committing the trespass or interference. But if the defendants succeed in proving that the possession of the land in question is not of the plaintiff, the suit will ipso facto fail. But taking as it is, I do not find that there is any force in the argument advanced on behalf of the defendants with the result that this Revision application is dismissed with costs.