Dismissed

Kunhu Mohammed v. Ala-Panangad Sahib Masjid Juma-Ath

Kerala HC5 Jul 2018RSA/235/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment allowing a suit challenging a resolution by a Mahal Committee regarding the language of religious discourse. The Court held that the resolution was validly ratified by the majority, notwithstanding the lack of initial required signatures in the bye-laws.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court.

Kunhu Mohammed Vs Ala-Panangad Sahib Masjid Juma-Ath — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 235 of 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 165/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA, DATED 19-09-2003

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 684/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR, DATED 30.07.1999

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1&2/PLAINTIFFS 1 AND 3 : -

¶9

1 KUNHU MOHAMMED, AGED 66 YEARS,

¶10

S/O. PUTHOTT ABDULLA,

¶11

SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE,

¶12

NELPINI DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶13

2 IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS,

¶14

S/O. UTTAMPUZHAYIL KUNHIMOHAMMED,

¶15

SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE,

¶16

VEMBALLUR DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶17

BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID

¶18

SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶19

SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER

¶20

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: -

¶21

ALA-PANANGAD SAHIB MASJID JUMA-ATH, MAHALLU COMMITTEE NOW REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT P.A.IBRAHIMKUTTY HAJEE, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VEMBALLUR DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶22

THE PRESENT SECRETARY OF 1ST RESPONDENT MAHALLU COMMITTEE, C.K.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KOCHAHAMMEDUNNI, CHALIL HOUSE, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VEMBALLUR DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

DMR/-

¶26

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

¶27

R.S.A. No. 235 of 2004

¶28

Dated this the 05^th day of July, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is against the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.165/1999 dated 19.9.2003. A suit was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Kodungallur, for a declaration that the resolution passed by the Mahal Committee is not binding on plaintiffs and for consequential injunction. Two members of the Mahal Committee had taken a decision regarding the user of the language in 'Khutuba' (a religious observation to be performed by the Muslim Community) during Friday juma prayer. The challenge is with respect to the validity of the resolution adopted and according to the plaintiffs it was in contravention of the mandate under the Bye-law of the Mahal Committee. Clause 12(a) of the Byelaw requires at least twenty persons approval in order to adopt a resolution or for placing a resolution. But, the resolution was adopted and placed by only two members and it is evident from the fact that it was signed by only two persons. But, later on, when the suit was taken up, it was let in evidence that majority of the Mahal Committee members, which comes to

¶31

R.S.A. No. 235 of 2004 2

¶32

487 members, voted accepting the resolution as against 38 members. But, the Trial Court allowed the suit which was reversed by the Appellate Court based on the voting given by majority of the Mahal Committee members. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that there is no provision in the byelaw enabling a resolution to be placed or adopted without having the consent of at least twenty members. But, in the present case, the resolution was moved and placed by only two members. Only two members' signature was found affixed as that of them. There is no provision for ratification by members in the byelaw.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on the decision drawn in Muhammed v. Moideen Haji reported in [2000 (2) KLT 216] and advanced an argument that a suit declaration regarding the religious discourse to be adopted in juma prayer on Friday is perfectly maintainable. It was also submitted that in that decision it was held that at the time of 'khutuba' in a mosque in connection with juma prayer on Fridays it can be in vernacular language along with its essential ingredients in Arabic. It was also submitted by the learned

¶34

R.S.A. No. 235 of 2004

¶35

¶36

counsel that if the above said resolution is accepted, it would be in gross violation of the legal position settled in the above said decision, which, according to him, is not permissible. I am not in a position to accept the contention simply because of the reason that they are not parties to the above said decision and they are not bound by the finding rendered in that decision based on the facts involved therein. Further, the Mahal Committee can take any decision regarding the language which can be used while observing 'khutuba' in connection with juma prayer on Fridays. Of course, it would be amenable for challenge if it was objected by its members. That does not mean that the decision rendered by this Court in Muhammed's case (supra) would be applicable invariably in all mosques. It is not a decision rendered in rem, but in personam. Hence, there is no merit in the argument advanced.

¶37

The principle of ratification really lies on each and every person. Any person can accept or reject anything which would affect him materially. That right vested with a person cannot be challenged or interfered. So the principle of ratification may not find a place in any of the bye-laws formulated by anybody, either

¶38

R.S.A. No. 235 of 2004

¶39

¶40

legal person or association/group of persons. It can be very well applied when there is sufficient reason for it and it cannot be negatived simply on the reason that there is no provision in the bye-law. In short, it is a right available with the members of the Mahal Committee to accept or reject a resolution by way of ratification. The non inclusion of sufficient number of persons for placing and adopting the disputed resolution now stood as ratified by a strength of 485 members as against 38 persons. So, there is no reason for interference by this Court to the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court.

¶41

Appeal lacks in merits, deserves only dismissal and I do so, but without cost.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶44

DMR/-

Kunhu Mohammed v. Ala-Panangad Sahib Masjid Juma-Ath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhu Mohammed v. Ala-Panangad Sahib Masjid Juma-Ath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mavila Prasanna Vs Mullacheri Ramani

Sathy Vs Hillvalley Corporation

N.P.Krishnakumar Vs Surya Nair

Nalini Vs Viswambharan

Kunikattil Gopalan Vs Village Officer

Moosa Vs Sulaiman