AHMED ADAM SAIT & OTHERS versus INAYATHULLAH MEKHRI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 29-03-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURt REPORts 
647 
AHMED ADAM SAIT & OTHERS 
v. 
INAYATHULLAH MEKHRI AND OTHERS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
and K. C. DAS GuPTAJJ.) 
Public Religious Trust-Scheme-Suit to set aside 'cheme-
Ben•ficiaries, not a particular sect of Muslim Community-Plea 
of res judicata-Character and nature of representative auit-
Ciroumstances under which a scheme can be set aside-Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908, (Act V of 1908), ss. 11 Exp. VI, 90, Or. 
J. rr. 6, 8. 
The respondents filed a suit under 1. 92 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 claiming to represent the Sunni Mu;lims 
population of Bangalore and praying that a scheme should be 
•ettled 
for the proper administration of the Jumma Masjid, 
Bangalore. 
The plot on which the Masjid was built was purchased 
about a century ago by a large number of Muslims consisting 
of several groups from 
all walks of life. The mosque was 
constructed from the funds given as gifts by a large number of 
Muslims. A grant of land made to the mosque shows that the 
mosque and its properties were intended for the benefit of the 
Muslim 
Community as 
a whole. 
For about 60 years the 
mosque and its properties were under the management of non· 
Cutchi Memons and prior to 
this the management was not 
exclusively in the hands of Cutchi Memons but predominently 
in the hands of Dekkhani Muslims of the locality. In subsequent 
years on some occasions the management was predominently 
in the hands of the Cutchi Muslims but the Dekkhani Muslims 
in Bangalore numbered about 30,000 and the Cutchi Muslims 
never exceeded 300. 
Prior to the present suit a suit under'· 92 was filed 
in 1924 and a scheme was settled and Trustees were appointed 
and they had been in management ever since. 
In the said 
proceedings, the plaintifffs, both in the application made co the 
Collector for sanction under s. 92 Code of Civil Procedure and 
In the plaint, specifically averred that the Masjid in question 
was an institution belonging to the Cutchi Memon Community 
1963 
Alarch 29 
/963 
Ahmttl Adam Soil 
v. 
lnaJ(!fhz:lla.~ J11Ahri 
048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [lti(Hj VOL. 
and they purported to 
represent the int<re<ts of that Cnmm1J-
nity and no other. 
l'ht:re \\'ere 
so111e defcn<la11ts in the ~uit 
who Y.'rre non 
Cutchi 
~fuslirns but they \\'l'.'lt': sued as trcs-
passer:s and their 011 ly interest in defending the suit ,,·as to 
support their individual rights. 
In the suit out of \vhich the present appeal has arisen 
the respondents claimd that the Masjid with its adjcrncts 
belonged to th~ \vhoJe 
~Juslin1 
Comrnunity of Bangalore 
and not exclusively to the Cutchi Muslims. 
It 
was further 
ciairne<l that the schen1e frarnt"d under the earlier sui1 was 
the result uf collusion and that the said decree did 11ot IJirtd 
the non-Cutchi 
~fcn\ons and that the present trustees \Vere 
guilty of mis1na11angement and Ureach of 11 ust. 
~fhe ;1 ppe-
Jlants contended that the Curchi ~.femon~ 
\Vere the exclusive 
beneficiaries and that the suit \vas barred liy ru j1ulicata and 
denied the allegations of collusion, bredch of trusr and rnis-
n1anagcn1ent. 
The trial court rejecrcd the contentions of the respondents 
and upholding the plea of ra judicata rai<ed by the appell.rnts 
disn1isscd the suit. 
Thereupon the rt:"spondcnts appealed to 
the High Court and the High Court while rejecting the picas 
of collusion and bre"ch of trust differed from the trial COUI t on 
the question of ru judico'a. 
It found that the Mosque and 
its adjuncts belonged to the whole of the Muslim community 
and not exclusively to the Cutchi Memons. Therefore the 
High Court while agreeing with the trial cou1t that a scheme 
1hould not be lightly disturbed found that a case had been 
n1ade out fJr framing a nc\'r' schcrne and remanded the casc- to 
the trial court. 
The present appeal is by way of special leave. 
-
The first point raised in the appeal was that the suit w;is 
barred by rea judicaltl on the ground that a suit under s.92 Code 
of Civil Prccedure \Vas a representative suit and the prcsc-nt 
respondents would be bound by it whether they were parties 
to it or not since they \Vere interested in the l'rtL,t. 
It \\'as 
further contended that since both the courts below had rejected 
the pica of rnis1nanage1ncnt and brea:h of trust and since the 
High (!ourt had found that the present trustcts were managing 
the tru~t reasonably and in a responsible manner this Court 
should not lightly disturb th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.