2006 PLP 938 (MLD)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

The petitioners/defendants impugn the appellate judgment and decree dated 27-1-2001 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 5-6-1997 was set aside and the declaratory suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.

2. The dispute between the parties relates to the management of a mosque and madrissa. The admitted position is that the mosque in question was constructed by Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad father of Haji Abdul Wahid (plaintiff/respondent No.1). The said Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad was also Imam of the Mosque. Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad died in 1987. The respondent/plaintiff No.1, who claims to be the President and Hafiz Muhammad Hussain (respondent No.2), who claims to be the Secretary of the Anjuman Madrissa Arabia Darul Aloom Taleme-ul-Quran Jamia Masjid Rehmania (Dewbandi), filed the declaratory suit against the petitioners/defendants out of which this revision petition has arisen. It was their case that the aforesaid Anjuman had been registered by them on 16-1-1988 under the Societies Registration Act and that the said Anjuman was entitled to manage the affairs of the mosque in question.

3. The petitioners/defendants resisted the suit. They acknowledged that the mosque had been constructed by Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad who was also the Imam of the mosque during his life-time. However, according to the petitioners, after the death of Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad, the residents of the locality had been managing the affairs of the mosque while respondents Nos.l and 2 had no connection therewith.

4. The learned trial Court framed as many as 7 issues but Issue No. I alone is dispositive of the matter. It was framed in the following terms: -- "Whether the plaintiffs are a registered Anjuman and is entitled to the management of the affairs of the disputed mosque and the defendants have no concern whatsoever with it? OPP"

5. Both sides led evidence. The respondents appeared as P.W.1 and P.W.2. From their testimony it is clear that they had no nexus with the management of the mosque. P.W. mainly emphasized the fact that his father had constructed the mosque and was its Imam. This fact, however, is not disputed by the petitioners/defendants. What is significant is that the respondent as P.W. admitted that he was not aware as to who was A the Imam of the mosque. Respondent No.2, who purportedly is the Secretary of the Anjuman mentioned above, appeared as P.W.2. He also deposed that he was unaware as to who was Imam of the mosque. He further deposed that he had occasionally been going to the mosque until 1990. He further acknowledged that the petitioners/defendants were in occupation of the mosque from the date of filing of the suit.

6. The above testimony is clearly indicative of the fact that the respondents/plaintiffs were not managing the affairs of the mosque after the death of Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad. The learned trial Court, therefore, had rightly dismissed the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs.

7. The learned appellate Court, however, as noted above, has reversed the findings of the learned trial-Court. I have gone through .the impugned appellate judgment and find that the learned Court has misdirected itself and has taken into account circumstances which, in no manner, establish that the respondents were running the affairs of the mosque. The reason, which has prevailed with the learned trial Court, is, firstly, that the mosque had been originally constructed by Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad father of respondent No.1, and, secondly, that the certificate of registration (Exh.P.1) of the above named Anjuman had been issued in 1988 by the competent Registrar. These circumstances, however, do not prove the case of the respondents. The mere fact that the father of respondent No.1 had construed the mosque, does not give any right to c the respondents to manage the same. Likewise the fact that the respondents had obtained registration of the Anjuman after the death of Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad, has no bearing on Issue No.1 reproduced above.

8. The learned appellate Court also proceeded on the premise that the electricity bill and Form PT-1 issued by the Property Tax Department were in the name of respondent No.1. These circumstances also do not establish that the respondents were managing the affairs of the mosque through the above named Anjuman. There is evidence on record that the brother of respondent No.1, namely, Abdul Khaliq has a shop selling sweetmeat in the property of the mosque and the electricity connection is being used by him. The electricity bills and PT-1 Form are only in continuation of the admitted position that Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad (father of respondent No.1) was the original Imam of the mosque and had constructed the same. The testimony of the respondent as P. Ws.1 and 2 respectively, which has been discussed above, unambiguously shows that the respondents are not involved in managing the affairs of the mosque. In this view of the matter, I am not in any doubt that the respondents have failed to prove Issue No.1 and, as a consequence, they were not entitled to the decree as prayed for by them.

9. For the reasons ,given above, I find that the impugned appellate decree is not legally sustainable. The same is, therefore, set aside. As a consequence, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 5-6-1997 stands restored. F.M./A-628/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.