Kerala High Court
Myloor Jama- Ath Mosque vs Abrar Juma Masjid
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940
WP(C).No. 17476 of 2018 H
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
----------
MYLOOR JAMA- ATH MOSQUE
MYLOORE KARA, VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM
TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MUTAWALLI, A.M.ABDULKHADER,
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED BECK, AMALIPURATH HOUSE,
MYLOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.
BY ADV.SRI.P.V.BABY
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. ABRAR JUMA MASJID,
MYLOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.M.SHAKEER,
S/O.MYTHEENPILLA, MACKANATTU HOUSE,
MYLOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 691.
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 661.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
POTHANICAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 661.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
R2-3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P P THAJUDDIN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 17476 of 2018 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 3/9/14 IN O.S
NO.490/2014 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
MOOVATTUPUZHA.
EXT P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2015 IN O.S
NO.490/2014 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
MOOVATTUPUZHA.
EXT P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
INJUNCTION DATED 3/09/14 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA, IN O.S NO.490/2014.
EXT P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED
BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER
2014 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA
IN I.A.NO.2902/2014, IN O.S NO.490/2014.
EXT P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/10/2014 IN
I.A.NO.2902/2014 IN O.S NO.490/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA.
EXT P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7/7/2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND AND
3RD RESPONDENTS.
EXT P7 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.22994/2016 DATED 5/12/2016 BEFORE THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ
-----------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 17476 of 2018 H
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 06th day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J The petitioner is before this Court seeking police protection to maintain status quo as ordered in Ext.P5 by the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition on the apprehension that the suit in which the status quo order passed may go against them and the party respondents who are defendants in the suit may create situations frustrating the appellate order. The suit is posted for judgment.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the dispute is with respect to the Madrassa building which is in the possession of the 1st W.P(C) No. 17476/2018 ::2::
respondent. The petitioner however, submits that it is attached to the Mosque in which the petitioner is a Muthavalli and it is now closed down.
3. There was a dispute with respect to the use of the graveyard attached to the Mosque of the petitioner. The petitioner, it is alleged, clandestinely filed a suit and obtained a decree against the rival group. The police hence directed that there shall be no burial conducted by the rival group in the graveyard. However, in a writ petition it was held that a Muslim has an absolute right to be buried in any of the burial ground in any Mosque. This has infuriated the petitioner and the petitioner's attempt now is to take over the Madrassa which is run by the 1 st respondent.
4. We will not enter into any of the factual W.P(C) No. 17476/2018 ::3::
controversies placed before us. We notice that Civil Court is seized of the matter in a suit filed by the petitioner, the plaint of which is produced at Ext.P1, which indicates a prayer for recovery of possession based on title and one for injunction against trespass by the defendants. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that if the suit goes against the petitioner, the building itself would be demolished. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that there is absolutely no intention to demolish the building. However, it is an old and dilapidated building and necessary repairs are to be conducted. Only when an electric connection was sought to be drawn, the entire dispute arose and there was a status quo order in the suit.
5. It is the categoric submission of the 1st respondent that the suit itself is not maintainable. We do not find any reason W.P(C) No. 17476/2018 ::4::
to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 especially in anticipation of the Munsiffs Court holding against the petitioner. The petitioner will have to work out the remedy before the appropriate court. The police would ensure that law and order is maintained.
We dispose of the writ petition with the above observations. No costs.
Sd/-
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge Sd/-
Ashok Menon, Judge jma