FAIZ MOHD Vs. KANAHIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS dispute in this second appeal by the plaintiffs relate; to the property situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur City which they in their representative capacity claimed as Wakf being a Mosque of Manihar community.

(2.) THE suit was originally instituted in the court of Munsiff on 5th March, 1948 and after some evidence had been recorded and it being found that the valuation of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif the plaint was returned for presentation to the competent court of jurisdiction on 4th May, 1953. THE plaint was then presented in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District.

(3.) EX. 2 is a map and EX. 3 copy of the Khasra prepared by the Survey and Record Officer, Jaipur and is of 30th July, 1947. EX. 6 is a notice issued by the Municipal Council Jaipur to Mohd. Ullah, asking him to make repairs of the house known as mosque of Manihars and to have it colour washed. This is dated 12th February, 1946. EX. 8 again is a notice issued by the Assistant Record Officer City Survey Jaipur to Mohd. Ullah. EX. 9 is also a copy of verification slip issued by the City Survey Office Jaipur. This is dated 2nd July, 1947. EX. 7 is a copy of the sale deed regarding the shops situated below the suit property and is dated 14th March. 1916 in which the property is described as mosque of Manihars. This document was executed between strangers to the suit and its recitals are not admissible in evidence in this case. The other documents EXs. 2,3,6,8 and 9 relate to the period when disputes had arisen between the parties regarding the nature of the property and as such are of no avail to the appellants. Even the small repairs alleged to have been carried out by the plaintiffs after 1942, are of little consequence and do not help the plaintiffs. Thus from all the circumstances relied upon on behalf of the appellants an inference of dedication of the property for building of a mosque or for any religious or charitable purpose cannot be made. On the facts and circumstances mentioned above I have no hesitation in holding that the property is not wakf and could consequently be transferred by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 3. I, therefore, agree with the learned district Judge that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case,