ANWAR AND OTHERS Vs. RAFIQUE ANSARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of order dated 04.10.2016 passed in Title Suit No.60 of 2016 by which application under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C has been dismissed, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) Title Suit No.60 of 2016 was instituted by Md. Anwar and 11 other individuals claiming to be Hanafi Muslims, all residents of village-Sultana, P.S-Katkamdag, District-Hazaribagh. The suit was instituted for a decree of declaration that the suit properties described in Schedule "I" and Schedule "II" to the plaint are properties of Madarsa Iftekhariya-Gausiya-Chistiya and for a declaration that the plaintiffs being President, Secretary, Treasurer and members of the said Madarsa have right to run the said Madarsa. The plaintiffs have sought further declaration that the suit properties can be used for the purpose of religious Madarsa and not for any other religious or non-religious purpose. The plaintiffs have pleaded that Schedule "I" property was purchased through a registered sale-deed of 1981 and Schedule "II" property was purchased through a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1981. From the description of the sale deeds the learned trial Judge inferred that the properties comprised in those sale deeds were sold when the vendor needed money for purchase of buffalo, repairing of house etc. The application under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C., has been dismissed observing that it does not reflect from the sale deeds that the lands comprised in both the sale deeds were purchased for the Madarsa. The affidavit filed in support of the application under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C., was supported by signature and thumb-impression of 12 persons, however, separate affidavits on their behalf were not filed. Rule 8 to Order I, C.P.C provides that where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. At the time of purchase of Schedule "I" and Schedule "II" lands who were the office-bearers has not been disclosed in the plaint. Whether the sale-deeds have been executed in favour of the office-bearers of the Madarsa, has also not been disclosed by the plaintiffs. Merely claiming that the Madarsa Iftekhariya-Gausiya-Chistiya is being run from Schedule "I" and Schedule "II" properties, application under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C has been filed by the plaintiffs. The suit is for a declaration of a personal right of the plaintiffs, besides other reliefs.

(3.) In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.10.2016 passed in Title Suit No.60 of 2016, the writ petition is dismissed.