Law:

Section:

I have heard the learned counsel at some length. Regrettably, it is the management of a mosque viz. Macca Masjid, Kathiawar Housing Society, which is in dispute in these proceedings. More regrettably, the question does not seem to have been approached by the two Courts below in proper perspective.   In the first place, it ought to have been seen as to who was the owner of the land on which the mosque was constructed, who had constructed the mosque in actuality and where, at the time of the institution of the suit and before such came to be instituted, the management of the mosque had vested. The case of the applicant-plaintiff has been that the ownership of the land vested in it and the structure of the mosque was also raised by it. The affairs of the mosque were allegedly being run and managed by the plaintiff society when the respondents Nos. 2--9 forcibly took over possession and later got a trust registered to land credence to the illegal take-over. The electricity and water charges etc., nonetheless, it is claimed, continued to be paid by the applicant society. The defence was that the mosque belonged to Allah and the management vested in the Namazis, who had constituted a regular trust to run the administration in an orderly and lawful manner.   It were such issues which came to be adjudicated when the society, in the suit instituted by it, sought the appointment of an interim receiver in the background of the respondents, allegedly, establishing a Madressah with a purported hostel and a refusal on the respondents' part to allow the Namazis to recite Salam for the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.). These were sensitive though not difficult questions and could tentatively be decided on the basis of affidavits and documentary material. What has actually happened is that the crucial determination has been bypassed and the appointment of receiver has been refused by the two Courts below, taking shelter in purported delay for seeking relief but evidently with a view to adopt the line of least resistance, ensuring continuance of status quo, without properly adverting to the question whether or not the plaintiff society was entitled to immediate possession…