Earlier a Commission was appointed by this Court to sort out the matter. The Commissioner has submitted a report and there he has stated that the present appellants are not willing to compromise the matter and as such this matter is heard. 2. I have heard Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. DK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal is against the concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below. The respondents herein filed a suit for declaration of right title of the plaintiff over the suit holding described in Schedule A and for a further declaration that the land described in Schedule B is a Govt reserved land for the Masjid and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the said land as described in the Schedule and for further declaration that the properties described in Schedule C belongs to the plaintiff. 3. The mosque in question was established in the year 1920 by some followers through contribution and subscriptions on a plot of land reserved for Masjid by the Govt of Assam measuring 3 kathas.l 5 lessas covered by Dag No. 1741 (old), 1223 (new) at Abdul Hamid Road of Tezpur Town and PS and Mouza Mahabhairab, District Darrang and that to impart Islamic education to the boys and girls of the Muslim community living in and around Tezpur Town a 'Maktab' was also established and started by constructing a building on a portion of the plot of land by the side of the said Masjid at about the same time through donations and subscriptions of the people of the said community, that some time during the Imamship of late Hafiz Habibulla apart of the said Maktab building was allotted to late Hafiz Habibulla, the then Imam, for his residence as an incidence to his Imamship of the said Masjid as there was no alternative arrangement for the residence accommodation of the Imam and rest of the building was utilised for the said Maktab and this arrangement had to be continued during the Imamship of late Hazi Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed upto the year 1949. 4. For the convenient living of the Imam and the members of his family, one Ekchala of permanent nature and one temporary out house were constructed later on by way of addition from the Masjid fund. 4. For the convenient living of the Imam and the members of his family, one Ekchala of permanent nature and one temporary out house were constructed later on by way of addition from the Masjid fund. For proper functioning of the Maktab a Committee was formed and late Hazi Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed was the Secretary of the Maktab. That in the Municipal valuation list the Masjid was registered in its own name while the Maktab was registered in the name of the Secretary Maktab in a separate holding. Subsequently, a new Maktab was established and part of the building which was earlier used as Maktab was gradually closed down and ultimately in the year 1949 the said Maktab was abolished. After coming back by Haji Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed from Haz, the entire building of the said Maktab was converted into the residential quarter of the said Imam of the said Masjid as an incidence to his Imamship of the said Masjid. Hazi Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed having fallen ill prior to about 3 months of his death being unable to discharge his duties of Imamship, Hafiz Aminul Haque was appointed to perform the Imamship of the said Masjid and ultimately on 12.3.78 Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed died. Thereafter a separate Managing Committee was constituted to manage the Mosque. The plaintiff society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In terms of the said Constitution of the society, all the properties of the Masjid including the Maktab building vested on the said Executive Committee of the plaintiff society and since then they are managing the same. Hazi Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed was allowed to occupy the said building during his life time by virtue of his Imamship of the said Masjid and the defendants in the suit being family members were staying with him in the said building and with termination of his Imamship of the said Masjid due to his death on 12.3.78 the defendants have forfeited all rights to continue in the building and they are legally bound to hand over the vacant possession of the said building and premises to the plaintiff. After the death of late Hazi Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed, several requests were made to the defendants to vacate the premises, but the defendants instead of vacating the premises has started to set up hostile title to the said building and premises by their various acts or commissions. After the death of late Hazi Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed, several requests were made to the defendants to vacate the premises, but the defendants instead of vacating the premises has started to set up hostile title to the said building and premises by their various acts or commissions. As the defendants did not vacate the premises, necessary notice was issued according to law, but the defendants in spite of receipt of the notice, constructed Gumti on the said land. Hence the suit with the following prayers : (a) For declaration of Tezpur Hindustani Muslim Panchay at's right and title in respect of the suit building mentioned in Schedule A and consequential reliefs of recovery of the houses mentioned in Schedule A. (b) For declaration that the land described in Schedule B is a Government reserved land for the Masjid i.e. Tezpur Hindustani (Deswali) Masjid, and eviction of the defendants therefrom by demolishing the Gumti standing on a part thereby described in Schedule B. (c) For declaration of Tezpur Hindustani Muslim Panchayats right and title and consequential relief of recovery of movable properties mentioned in Schedule C. There were other prayers but we are not concerned with the same. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant. The whole contention of the defendant was that the Maktab has got no concern with the Masjid. The separate Municipal holding in two separate name clearly signify separate identity of Masjid and Maktab. That the plaintiff society has no right to sue. They claim that they h are not liable to vacate the land. On this pleadings as many as 10 issues were framed in the suit. It is not necessary to quote the issues. For decisions of these issues 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and six witnesses were examined by the defendant. A large number of documents were also exhibited. Issue No. 1 is regarding the maintainability. The trial Court has decided as follows: “Therefore, it is certain that the said Masjid is known as Hindustani Masjid and the Hindustani Muslim Panchayat is the sole authority to maintain and manage the Masjid and its properties. So, there is no doubt that it is the Hindustani Muslim Panchayat and its Managing Committee who can look after the interest of the Masjid and to protest its property. So, there is no doubt that it is the Hindustani Muslim Panchayat and its Managing Committee who can look after the interest of the Masjid and to protest its property. There is no other authority to question the action of the Panchayat or its Committee. The Secretary the plaintiff was authorised to file the suit.” Issue Nos 2, 3,4 and 5 need no discussions. Issue No.2 whether the plaint has been signed and verified by authorised person. Issue No. 3 is whether the suit has been properly valued and whether proper court fee has been filed. Issue No. 4 is whether there is any cause of action in the suit. Issue No. 5 is whether the suit is barred by limitation. All these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 6 is whether the State of Assam is a necessary party and it was found by the trial Court that the State of Assam is not a necessary party. Issue No. 7 is most vital issue and that issue is whether Tezpur Hindustani Muslim Panchayat has any right title in the suit land and premises and in the movable properties described in the plaint. In the plaint there is a statement that the Govt of Assam reserved 3 kathas and 15 lessas of land covered by Dag No. 1741 d (old), 1223 (new) for Masjid and thereafter Masjid and Maktab were established by Hindustani Muslim. PW 1 who is a man aged about 101 years stated the details how the Masjid was established. He has given detailed picture about the land and construction of the Masjid. Ext 13 the Chitha shows that this land was originally recorded in the name of the Masjid, but later on it was cut down and name of the defendant was shown as Rayat in Column No. 16 and the period of possession was shown 12 years, later on it was cut down. Column No. 23 is remarks column of the Chitha. In the said column it is specifically written Masjid (Mosque). This Ext 13 itself shows that this land was actually reserved for Masjid and that is why in the remarks column it was mentioned as such. Column No. 23 is remarks column of the Chitha. In the said column it is specifically written Masjid (Mosque). This Ext 13 itself shows that this land was actually reserved for Masjid and that is why in the remarks column it was mentioned as such. There is also evidence as deposed by PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed had been in the house given as an incidence of Imamship and not in his personal capacity. DW1 the widow of Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed also admitted this position as has been found by the trial Court. That is also in admission of DW 2 the son of Hafiz Mamtazuddin Ahmed. On the basis of these materials it was found by the trial Court that the plaintiff had the right, title and interest to the house on the land and also held that title of the land may be possessory title and accordingly the suit was decreed. There was an appeal being Title Appeal No.4 of 1987 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur. The learned Judge on consideration of the materials on record affirmed this finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. Folio wings are sought to be urged as substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the plaintiff's title could be declared in respect of the suit land which is admittedly Government land without making the State of Assam a party ? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation ? 3. Whether the Secretary of the Tezpur Hindustani Muslim Panehayat had the right to sue or to get a decree ? 5. Regarding No.2 question sought to be urged there is no substance in this question at all and by no stretch of imagination it can be deemed to be barred by limitation. Regarding point No.3 as I have pointed out above in the facts and circumstances of the case it is the Secretary of the Tezpur Hindustani Maslim Panehayat which have right to sue to get the decree inasmuch as under the Mohammedan Law a Mosque is not a juristic person (See AIR 1926 Lahore 372, Maula Bux vs. Hafizuddin and AIR 1940 PC 116 Shahidganj vs. Gurdwara Parbandha Committee. The question was discussed in the Shahidganj's case and their Lordships reserved their opinion on it on the question whether Mosque a juristic person or not. But it is pointed out by Mulla's Mohammedan Law in Clause 219 of his Book that the trend of their observations seems to show that the view of the Lahore High Court did not commend itself on them and their Lordships however held that suits cannot be brought by or against Mosques as artificial persons. In the same clause Mulla has cited a decision of the Rajasthan High Court that a Mosque is not a juristic person. I have not been able to look into the same as citation is not available and as such I have not been able to go through it. So if the Mosque is not an artificial person, the property of the Mosque must be protected by some one 'and it is in that context that the plaintiff has right to sue on behalf of the Mosque as pointed out by Mulla in his book a Mosque is nothing but a place where all Muslims offer prayers therein without any distinction of sect and it is further pointed out by Mulla that to a Mosque all Mussalmans can simply walk and offer prayer there. A Mosque also does not belong to a particular sect or class, it belongs to all the Mussalmans. That being the position, the plaintiff will have the right to protect the property of the Mosque and if the matter is considered from that angle also, they have the right to sue. Therefore all the points urged are rejected/The appeal is dismissed. Stay order if any passed earlier shall stand vacated.