Muslim Relief Committee Charitable Trust vs T.H. Aslam

G.Girish, J

Aggrieved by the refusal of the Munsiff’s Court, Thalassery and the Sub Court, Thalassery to grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendants in O.S.No.269/2021 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-Trust in the plaint schedule property in the said suit, the present Original Petition is filed by the plaintiff-Trust under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The plaintiff Trust is said to have been formed for the upliftment of the religious, charitable, social and economic status of the members of the Muslim Community in and around Peringadi. Earlier, a Society by name Muslim Relief Committee, Peringadi was formed in the year 1976 and registered in the year 1988. The President of the aforesaid Society is the Chairman representing the plaintiff Trust in this suit. The 2nd defendant is alleged to have tarnished the name of the aforesaid Society and accordingly, his name was said to have been removed from the register as per the decision of a meeting held on 09.11.2018. The defendants 1, 3 and 4, according to the plaintiff, are keeping inimical attitude towards the Society. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that most of the members of the said Society are no more. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff would contend that the erstwhile Muslim Relief Committee, Peringadi was dissolved and the present plaintiff-Trust was formed in the year 2020. The plaint schedule property, which earlier belonged to the erstwhile Society named Muslim Relief Committee, Peringadi, is said to have been now held by the duly formed Trust represented by its Chairman, who is the signatory to the plaint in the aforesaid suit. Alleging that the defendants are trying to trespass into the plaint schedule building and to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, the suit has been instituted before the Munsiff’s Court, Thalassery. I.A.No.2/2021 was filed for a temporary injunction in the aforesaid terms till the disposal of the suit. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed I.A.No.2/2021 holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the temporary injunction sought for. Though the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Sub Court, Thalassery as C.M.A.No.16/2022, the learned Sub Judge also concurred with the findings of the Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the trial court and appellate court, the petitioner is now here before this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner finds fault with the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court stating the reason that the said courts ignored the sound principles governing the grant of equitable relief of prohibitory injunction intended for the protection of suit property till the final disposal of the suit. It is stated that the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to appreciate the cardinal principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in the correct perspective. It is also contended that the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court disclosed that the respondents are not in physical possession of the suit property, and hence the temporary injunction ought to have been allowed to prevent the apprehended dispossession of the petitioner (plaintiff).

It appears from the aforesaid challenges raised by the petitioner in the Original Petition that the petitioner wants this Court to sit on appeal over the verdicts rendered by the learned Munsiff and the learned Sub Judge declining the temporary injunction order sought for by the plaintiff in O.S.No.269/2021 of the Munsiff’s Court, Thalassery. I am afraid, the petitioner had forgotten for a moment that the present proceedings are neither an appeal nor a revision against the impugned decisions of the Munsiff’s Court and Sub Court. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India upon judicial orders passed by the courts below is limited to those cases where the verdicts rendered are vitiated by apparent perversity and illegality of the highest grade warranting the intervention of this Court to abate the harm caused to the system due to it.

In Shalini Shyam Shetti v. Rajendra Sankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court held that High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the orders of Tribunals or Courts inferior to it, and nor can it, in exercise of its power act as a Court of Appeal over the orders of the Court or Tribunal.

In  Iswar Lal Mohan Lal Thakur v. Paschim Gujrat VIJ Company Ltd. and another [(2014) 6 SCC 434] the Apex Court held that High Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as an appellate court or re-appreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. It is further observed in the aforesaid decision that only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on the record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court.

As far as the present case is concerned, a reading of the order and judgment of the Munsiff’s Court, Thalassery and Sub Court, Thalassery would reveal that both the above courts arrived at the conclusion that the formation of the plaintiff Trust as well as the devolution of the plaint schedule property claimed by them was per se ultra vires. Relying on Clause 19 of Ext.B2 byelaw of the erstwhile Muslim Relief Committee which is said to be the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Trust, the trial court as well as the Appellate Court held that the formation of the plaintiff Trust and their claim over the suit property were against the terms of registered byelaw of the said Society. Clause 19 of Ext.B2 byelaw contained the unequivocal recital that in the event of any obstruction to the functioning of the Committee or the termination of its activities, the entire assets of the Committee shall be administered as an Islamic Waqf. Relying on the aforesaid Clause of Ext.B2 byelaw, the trial court and the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff Trust was having no right over the plaint schedule building. It was further observed in the impugned verdicts that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive possession over the plaint schedule building since the byelaw of the erstwhile Muslim Relief Committee contained express provisions forbidding the appropriation of the property of the said Committee in any manner otherwise than considering it as a Waqf property. There is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid findings of the trial court and the Appellate Court warranting interference in an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say that the present petition filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.269/2021 of the Munsiff’s Court, Thalassery, can only fail.

The Original Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs.