Thajudeen C.H vs Ibrahim @ Kochooran

A. Badharudeen, J

This is a petition filed by Thajudeen, aged 30 years, Muhammed Rafi, aged 34 years along with 2 other persons seeking permission for them to file Second Appeal against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.87/2000 on the files of Sub Court, Moovattupuzha, arising out of the decree and judgment in O.S.NO.403/1996. The main contention raised in the affidavit in support of this petition as could be read out in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit as under:

“2. The appeal was filed against the decree in OS number 403 of 1996 of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha it is stated that the suit was filed in a representative capacity by the plaintiffs stating that they are the members of thottathikulam family and that they are having the right of management and administration over the wakf kutilanji methala moidheen palli and the defendants has no right of management.”

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the verdicts under challenge were rendered in their absence and, therefore, the right to the petitioners to challenge the verdicts is to be protected by granting permission.

I have perused the judgment dated 31.08.2000 in O.S.403/96 rendered in a Suit filed during 1996. The plaintiffs were Ebrahim and others and defendants were Muhammed Haji and others. The Suit was one for recovery of possession and injunction and the contention raised by the plaintiffs was that Kuttilanji Muslim Mosque was established by ancestors of the plaintiffs and the same now known by the name `Kuttilanji-Methala Muhayudeen Mosque'. According to the plaintiffs, the members of Thottathikkulam family had dedicated the property for construction of the Mosque about 140 years back. There was dispute with regard to the management of the Mosque among the family members of the Thottathikkulam family which led to filing of 2 Suits, viz. 548/1107 ME and 130/1117 ME. Later, the above Suits were compromised and a registered document of the year 1119 ME of Kothamangalam SRO was registered with regard to the management of the Mosque. Accordingly, the members of Thottathikkulam family became the Muthavallis. Thereafter members from Chittethukudi family, who are defendants in the Suit also interfered with the administration of the Mosque and at this juncture the said Suit was filed. On adjudication of the dispute, in fact, between 2 families, the learned Munsiff found that the members of the plaintiffs' family are entitled to manage the affairs of Kuttilanji-Methala Muhayudeen Mosque and the Muthavalliship as per Udambadi No.5 of 1119 ME of Kothamanagalam S.R.O and, therefore, the defendants had no manner of right of management. Accordingly permanent prohibitory injunction was granted against defendants 2 to 9 restraining them from making any decision which would adversely affect the rights of the plaintiffs' family. Even though appeal was filed before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha as A.S.No.87/2000, the learned Sub Judge also concurred the finding. Thereafter, the family members of Chittethukudi family accepted the verdict and the Thottathikkulam family members have been administering the Mosque as Muthavallis in terms of the Udampady No.5 of 1119 ME of Kothamangalam S.R.O, as per the decision in O.S.No.403/1996. Even though the Suit was decreed as early as on 31.08.2000 and the appeal was dismissed as on 16.11.2016, the defendants therein did not challenge the first appellate judgment in any manner.

As I have already pointed out, the age of the 1st petitioner herein is 30 years as of now and the 2nd petitioner is aged 34 years. If so, the age of the 1st and 2nd petitioner to be 2 and 6 years respectively at the time of filing the Suit in 1996. True that 2 other persons were also arrayed as the petitioners. Thus it appears that the 1st petitioner, who was aged 2 years and the 2nd petitioner, who was aged 6 years at the time of filing the earlier Suit in relation to the management of the Mosque along with others filed this petition to challenge the said verdict after a long delay. It is relevant to note further that, as borne out from the verdicts, as early as in 1107 ME and 1117 ME there were disputes in the matter of management and finally as part of Udampady executed as document No.5 of 1119 ME management was entrusted with Thottathikkulam family. Now the petitioners want to challenge the said right, in fact, concluded by Udampadi No.5 of 1119, as confirmed in A.S.No.87 of 2000. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have right over the Mosque, nothing substantiated or even a scrap of paper produced to show how the petitioners could get right of management over the Mosque, which was confirmed as herein above discussed. Thus it appears that the petitioners want to re-open a concluded dispute starting from 1107 ME before the birth of all the petitioners herein to disturb the administration vested with the Thottathikkulam family. So the intention of the petitioners is not at all bonafide and therefore, the petition at the instance of the petitioners found to be devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, the unnumbered Regular Second Appeal also stands rejected.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order/judgment to the respondents in this matter, for their information.