SOOFI MUNSHI AZAHAR HOSSAIN Vs. AMIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit relates to premises Nos. 5, 7 and 7/1, McLeod Street. No. 3/1 is a mosque standing on approximately one cotta of land. No. 3/1, McLeod Street, is comparatively recent. No. 5, McLeod Street, was formerly No. 4, Goristhan Lane. Nos. 7 and 7/1 were formerly No. 4/5, Goristhan Lane. No. 4/4, Goristhan Lane is now No. 6 and 6/1, McLeod Street. Before I deal with the facts, there being numerous parties, I shall mention how the parties are interested. Defendant 1 now claims to be entitled to the whole of No. 7, McLeod Street, less one room. Defendant 2 claims to be entitled to half of No. 7/1 plus a down stair room in No. 7. Defendant 3 is the widow of one Sachindranath Mitter who bought a leasehold interest in No. 7/1, and the room, the leasehold however being of considerable value. Defendants 4, 9, 10 and 11, are the representatives of the purchaser of the entirety of No, 5. Defendant 6 is the holder of a decree in execution of which. Amir Ahmed, defendant 1, and defendant 2 made their purchases. Defendant 7 is Abdul Mannon and defendant 8 is Rachael Khatun, the wife of Abdul Mannon. They are alleged to have been in occupation of the premises in suit as mutwallis and as such mutwallis to have made in breach of trust these transfers and these transactions which ultimately resulted in the situation which we now have. These transactions are set out with sufficient and perhaps surprising accuracy in the plaint.

(2.) Put shortly, the position is as follows: One Nawab Jan in 1907 made a gift of the three premises to his sons Abdul Mannon and Abdul Rahman in equal shares. Nawab Jan had apparently been in possession of these properties (in what capacity I do not for the moment discuss) since 1850. By various transactions between the brothers and sisters, the children of Nawab Jan, the premises became vested as follows: as to No. 5 in Zabida who is represented by defendants 4, 9, 10 and 11. At the period of time I am about to mention Abdul Mannon and Rachael Khatun had a half of Nos. 7 and 7/1 plus another 1/4 purchased from Rahman's branch, After these transactions, somewhere about 1925 Mannon and Rachael Khatun began to be in difficulties. In particular one M.K. Bose, a solicitor, in respect of costs obtained a charge on the interest of Mannon and Rachael Khatun in Nos. 7 and 7/1. In 1926 when Mr. M.K. Bose and other creditors were pressing their claims, the question of wakf was mooted amongst members of the family of Nawab Jan. In 1928 Mahomed Maki's suit was filed, a suit of a similar nature in this respect that it was brought to establish the wakf character of these properties, the only difference being that in that case Mahomed Maki claimed to be in some way a member of the family. It was dismissed on 14 July 1929 by Costello, J. who held that the properties were not wakf.

(3.) In August 1931 there was a sale of these properties under the charge and decree of Mr. M.K. Bose. At this sale as I have already said, Ameer Ahmed bought the half share of Mannon and Rachael in No. 7, and defendant 2 bought their interest in No. 7/1 plus the room. Some time thereafter Ameer Ahmed who was apparently the owner of No. 4 ejected Mr. Cohen, the brother of Rachael from those premises. In 1932 Ameer Ahmed filed a partition suit in respect of No. 7 and on 4 August 1933 obtained a preliminary decree. On 8 August this suit was filed, history thus repeating itself. I refer of course to the suit of Mahomed Maki. On 13th December 1934 was filed the other suit, 1968 of 1934, by Abdul Mannon against Ameer Ahmed, in which I have already delivered judgment.