SYED FARZAND ALI Vs. NASIR BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by one of the defendants in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs Nasir Beg, Mirza Basir Beg, and Nanney Khan instituted a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants and other Muslims of the city of Mathura who do not belong to Ahele Hadis sect from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs in offering 'Namaz' by reciting the word 'Aameen' loudly, after the recital of Alhumd by the Imam during the prayer in Shabina Masjid or in any other mosque in the district of Mathura. The suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 C. P. C. The suit was decreed with costs against the contesting defendants and other Muslims belonging to Hanafi sect. An appeal was filed by the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5. The lower Appellate Court was of the opinion that the appeal was liable to be dismissed except that the decree should be modified only to the extent that the defendants and other Mohammadans of the Hanafi sect should be restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs from offering 'Namaz' and reciting the word 'Aameen loudly in Shabina Masjid and in any other mosque in the district of Mathura where the plaintiffs could offer the 'Namaz' by virtue of their being Mohammadans.

(3.) In this appeal Mr. Mohd. Yaqub Siddiqi contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable and the approach of the lower Appellate Court was erroneous. He further contended that the court below erred in granting the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants not only for Shabina mosque but hundreds of mosques in Mathura district in respect of which there is no relief. He further contended that on the question whether the plaintiffs have a right of uttering the word 'Aameen' loudly was contrary to the religious precepts and would amount to an interference with their right of offering 'Namaz' or saying their prayers in the mosque. Learned counsel in support of his contention urged that the Hadis spelt out the practice which had been practised by the Musalmans and which found favour with the authors of acknowledged Islamic religious books. I have heard Mr. Tanardan Sahai learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents who cited three decisions of the Full Benches of this Court where the opinion of Mahmood, J. was relied upon.