KASAMKHAN AHMEDKHAN MUJAWAR Vs. KAJI ISUB KAJI SHABUDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit relating to a dargah (shrine) of a Pir in the village of Pawas. The plaintiff claims to be the descendant of the Pir and sues for a declaration o- his rights as a mujawar in respect of the dargah, and for an injunction against obstruction to his rights. In the plaint he claims full proprietary rights over this dargah, and the properties appertaining to it. He also claims the sole right of conducting, the Urus or the annual festival and other religious ceremonies therein. The defendants on the other hand claim as Kazis of Pawas the right of performing these ceremonies and to receive the navas or offerings made at it. The main dispute was as to disposal of those offerings. The trial Court granted the plaintiff a declaration that he was the present rightful holder of the office of the mujawar, but rejected his claim to the proprietorship over the dargah and moveables therein. This decree was confirmed by the District Judge on appeal, except that a declaration that the trial Judge made to the effect that the defendants (Kazis) had no right of management over the dargah was struck out by the District Judge. Both Courts have held that, so far as the plaintiff's claim relates to the management of the Urua and other ceremonies and to the disposal of the voluntary offerings made by devotees, it is not maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff's appeal to this Court is pressed only as to this latter point.

(2.) The first question is whether the plaintiff's alleged rights: (a) to conduct certain religious rites at the time of Urus, and (b) to appropriate the proceeds of the navas or offerings made by devotees, less certain expenses, are barred because he claimed these rights as manager of the dargah and he has been held by both the lower Courts not to be its sole manager, as he claimed to be.

(3.) I do opt think this is involved by the pleadings. Plaintiff's main contention in the plaint was not a right of management, but a proprietary right of ownership over the dargah. Accordingly Issue 3 deals with this question, and no issue was framed in the trial Court as to the right to manage the dargah, though this question is discussed in the Subordinate Judge's judgment and was agitated at the trial. The Subordinate Judge in summarizing the plaint puts the claims (a) and (b) that I have mentioned above as further claims to the claim of proprietary, rights. Similarly, the District Judge in para. 2 of his judgment separates the claims, and his decision goes no further than saying that the plaintiff has not the sole right to manage the dargah property and the religious ceremonies connected with it.