9911796707
TMI Blog1947 (3) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yal Mosque and the control and administration of its affairs in a Board of trustees. The appellant was not a party to the scheme suit. 2. When the trustees sought to obtain possession of the mosque, in pursuance of the scheme decree, they were obstructed by one Sheikh Mowla and his tenant, a man named Hanumantha Rao, who claimed the right to occupy one room. The trustees instituted O.S. No, 23 of 1940 in the same Court against Hanumantha Rao for possession of the room and, ultimately, on appeal to this Court, possession was decreed. When the trustees applied for possession, they were obstructed by the present appellant. In E.A. No. 256 of 1943 for removal of the obstruction it was held that the appellant was a stranger to the mosque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a granted to one Mohammed Hafi the office of Kazi of the Sirkar empowering him to administer various judicial and other functions ; Ex. P-1, dated 1st April, 1864, Razinama decree passed by the District Civil Court of Rajahmundry, and Ex. P-4, dated the 23rd February, 1860, copy of an extract from the register of inams in the village of Korumilli in the taluk of Ramachandrapur in the district of Godavari. 6. In his evidence the appellant said that his son furnished him with these documents, by whom they were obtained ; and he claims that he is a descendant of those in whose favour the grants and the decree were made and that he has inherited the rights which he seeks to have declared in his favour in the suit. 7. In his judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is guardian during minority sued to assert personal rights regarding the temple which had been the subject-matter of the scheme suit. It was held that a scheme framed under Section 539 of the Code of 1882 (corresponding to Section 92 of the Code of 1908) is binding on all, whether worshippers or not including even a person who might have claimed a hereditary trusteeship and have brought a suit to enforce such relief before the settlement of the scheme ; a decree framing a scheme is a bar to a suit by such a person, even where his application to be made a party to the scheme suit has been rejected. At page 369 in the judgment of Sir Arnold White, C.J. and Phillips, J., it was observed that this would seem to preclude suits between part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay and Allahabad. No authority was cited in which the correctness of that decision has been challenged and wherever cited it would appear to have been accepted as correct. After the lime which has elapsed since the principles were enunciated in Ramados's case (1911) 2 M.L.J. 952 : I.L.R. Mad. 364 and in the light of the decision being followed wherever cited, it seems too late now to question its correctness. 12. In my view, therefore, it should be followed in the present instance, and applying that case to the appeal now before us, it follows that the appellant is not entitled, by the suit out of which this appeal arises, to assert the claims which he makes. The learned Judge in the Court below was correct in dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
