1947 (3) TMI 28 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal related to a mosque known as the "Royal Mosque" in Rajahmundry.
2. Scheme framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the mosque.
3. Appellant not a party to the scheme suit.
4. Obstruction by appellant against trustees seeking possession of the mosque.
5. Appellant's claim as hereditary Khaji and Sajja-da-Nishin of the mosque.
6. Allegations of continuous possession and enjoyment of the property.
7. Claims based on historical documents.
8. Effect of decree in the scheme suit on appellant's claims.
9. Precedents regarding the binding nature of scheme decrees.
10. Application of previous court decisions to the present case.

Analysis:

1. The judgment concerns an appeal regarding the "Royal Mosque" in Rajahmundry, with a scheme framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for its administration. The appellant, not a party to the scheme suit, obstructed trustees seeking possession of the mosque, leading to the current dispute.

2. The appellant claims to be the hereditary Khaji and Sajja-da-Nishin of the mosque, alleging uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. Historical documents, including grants and decrees, support the appellant's assertions of ancestral rights over the mosque and its properties.

3. The central issue revolves around the effect of the decree in the scheme suit on the appellant's claims. The lower court held that the scheme suit decree binds all parties, preventing the appellant from asserting conflicting rights. The court did not delve into the merits of the appellant's claims, leading to the current appeal.

4. Precedents, such as Ramados v. Hanumantha Rao, establish that scheme decrees are binding on all parties, even those not involved in the original suit. These decisions emphasize the public benefit of charitable schemes settled by the court, limiting private claims that may interfere with established schemes.

5. The court, citing past judgments, upholds the binding nature of scheme decrees and dismisses the appellant's suit. Despite potential challenges to the applicability of previous decisions, the court concludes that the longstanding authority of these precedents precludes the appellant from asserting his claims through the current appeal. The judgment affirms the lower court's decision to dismiss the appellant's proceedings.