JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - All these four second appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment of mine. Second Appeal No. 288/51 arises out of Title Suit No. 852/1947 where the Plaintiffs, Saheb Jamal Khan, Sk. Naziruddin (who are Respondents before me) prayed for a declaration that they are the Mutwallis of a mosque situate in mouza Maheswarpur in the subdivision of Jajpur, and further that they have got the exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin of the mosque. The Plaintiffs further went on to state that the Mohammedan public of the locality in defiance of their exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin had appointed Defendants 9 and 10 (Sk. Mahiuddin Raheman and Sk. Raitulla) as Peshimam and Muazin respectively. The Plaintiffs prayed for removal of these two persons on a declaration that their appointment was invalid. The Plaintiffs had brought two other suits (Money Suits Nos. 204 and 578 of 1947) out of which Second Appeals 284 and 286 arose. In the Money Suits the Plaintiff-mutwallis claimed damages against the Defendants in those on the allegation that they had cut and removed s e branches of palm trees and also removed cocoanuts from the trees belonging to the mosque. The Mohammedan public of the locality had brought a counter suit (O.S. No. 31/48) out of which Second Appeal 285/51 arises for a declaration that the Plaintiff In the other suit, are not the mutwallis of the mosque and that Defendants No. 9 and 10 have been validly appointed by the public as Peshimam and Muazin respectively and that they are not liable for eviction or removal. All the four suits were tried together. 2. The lower appellate Court rightly starts with the observation that the only point for consideration in all these suits is whether the Plaintiff-Respondents are the mutwallis, and as such, they have exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the Plaintiffs are the mutwallis and actually they were managing the properties of the mosque for a very long time past. They have also found that they have the exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the Plaintiffs are the mutwallis and actually they were managing the properties of the mosque for a very long time past. They have also found that they have the exclusive right of appointment and dismissal of Peshimam and Muazin. They have therefore decreed T. S No. 352/47 in full even with the declaration that Defendants No. 9 and 10 have not been validly appointed as Peshimam and Muazin of the mosque and they are liable for removal. The counter suit brought by the Mohammedan public has been dismissed. In the two money-suits a modified decree has been passed. The Second Appeals have been brought by the Mohammedan public of the locality. 4. Regarding the findings of the Courts below that the Plaintiffs in T.S. No. 352/47 are the mutwallis of the mosque who actually managed the mosque and the mosque properties for a very long time, they have relied upon quite a number of documents filed by the parties. The successive settlements' records of rights support the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs themselves and their predecessors were the mutwallis ever since the year 1899. The settlement records find sufficient support with reference to the subsequent events transpiring from the registered sale-deeds (Exts.9 and 11 to 14), the earliest being of the year 1914, that the properties were acquired In the name of the mosque through the Plaintiff-Respondents or their ancestors as the mutwallis of the mosqu. It transpires also from the series of rent receipts (Exts. 10, 16, and 17) that the Plaintiff-Respondents have all along been paying rentals of the lands owned by the mosque. The account papers also support the case of the Plaintiffs. In my view, the Courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that in fact the Plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest were the mutwallis actually managing the properties of the mosque ever since 1899. The Courts below have also considered and rejected the evidentiary value of the documents filed by the defence as not being consistent with their case. 5. Mr. B.N. Das, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, however lays stress upon Ext. 8 of the year 1981 in support of his argument that it Was realty the members of the public who were managing the mosque and not the Plaintiffs. Ext. 5. Mr. B.N. Das, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, however lays stress upon Ext. 8 of the year 1981 in support of his argument that it Was realty the members of the public who were managing the mosque and not the Plaintiffs. Ext. 8 is an Ekararnama as between Plaintiff-Respondent No. 2 and some members of the public and is dated 23.11.81 Plaintiff-Respondents No. 2 who examined himself as P.W. 4 offered an explanation that the document came into existence only on account of a hitch between himself and the other mutwallis of the mosque (Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3). The lower appellate Court rightly has not put any importance to this document. Manifestly It appears that this was never acted upon and the public had never assumed management of the properties or the religious functions of the mosque. This conclusion of mine is sufficiently strengthened by reference to the above series of voluminous documents placed on record and considered by the Courts below. The Plaintiffs being the mutwallis were managing the properties and the affairs of the mosque and therefore undoubtedly were the authorities to appoint and dismiss the Peshimam and Muazin, and if on account of some reasons they were satisfied to remove the present Defendants 9 and 10 previously, the removal cannot be questioned before us and the members of the public had no right to reappoint Defendants No. 9 and 10. 6. On the above considerations therefore I am in agreement with the views of the lower appellate Court. The, appeals therefore are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs of this Court. Appeals dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed