1939 (9) TMI 9 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the incorporation of the plaintiff society under the Societies Registration Act.
2. Right of the plaintiff society to manage the mosque and whether it acquired the office of muthavalli by prescription.
3. Whether the plaintiff society has become defunct due to the death of original members.
4. Internal dissensions within the plaintiff society affecting its management.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Incorporation of the Plaintiff Society under the Societies Registration Act:
The defendant argued that the plaintiff society was a religious society and therefore incapable of incorporation under the Societies Registration Act, which only allows charitable societies. The court examined whether the plaintiff society, formed for managing the mosque, was a charitable society within the meaning of the Act. The court referenced the Allahabad High Court decision in Anjuman Islamia of Muttra v. Nasir-ud-din, which held that a society for religious purposes could be considered a charitable society. The court noted that, according to English law at the time of the Act's passage in 1860, a society for the advancement of religion or public worship was considered charitable. The court concluded that the plaintiff society's paramount object was charitable, as it included purposes like improving Islamic education and aiding the poor, making its registration under the Act legal and valid.

2. Right of the Plaintiff Society to Manage the Mosque and Whether it Acquired the Office of Muthavalli by Prescription:
The defendant contended that he was the duly constituted muthavalli and that the plaintiff society could not acquire this office by prescription. The court explained that a muthavalli is a manager or superintendent of a religious institution under Mohammadan Law and that such a position could be held by a body of persons or an incorporated body. The court found that the plaintiff society had been in undisputed management of the mosque for 14 years, thus acquiring the right to manage it by prescription. The defendant, having surrendered his right and not exercised management for this period, lost his right to interfere with the plaintiff's management.

3. Whether the Plaintiff Society has Become Defunct Due to the Death of Original Members:
The defendant argued that the plaintiff society had become defunct because most original members had died, and there was no rule for filling vacancies caused by death. The court interpreted Rule 6 of the society's rules, which allows the Committee to remove and appoint members, as also applying to vacancies caused by death. The court noted that vacancies had been filled over time, with the Registrar of Joint Stock Societies informed of changes, and the defendant himself had participated in such resolutions. Thus, the court overruled this contention.

4. Internal Dissensions Within the Plaintiff Society Affecting its Management:
The defendant raised concerns about internal dissensions within the plaintiff society, particularly the preponderance of the Shafi element over the Hanafi, leading to disputes. The court acknowledged these issues but stated they were not within its current concern. These matters could be addressed in a separate suit filed under Section 92 for framing a scheme for the mosque's proper management. The court suggested that the learned Judge in that suit could consider whether the society should continue managing the mosque or if a new management scheme should be framed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the plaintiff society's incorporation and its right to manage the mosque. The court found that the society had not become defunct and that internal dissensions should be addressed in a separate suit for framing a management scheme. The appeal was dismissed with costs.