(1.) THIS is an extraordinary case in which the applicants have been ordered to execute bonds under Section 107, Criminal P.C., to keep the peace for a period of one year. It appears that there are two parties in the village Sawangi and its suburb Wagjai. The, complainants belong to the one which consists of Tekales who are Marathas by caste. The applicants belong to the other. They are Wanjaris by caste and are sub-divided into Sanap and Mundha Wanjaris. The trouble between the parties arose out of what has been described as the manpan of the village at festival times. Exactly what this manpan is has not been satisfactorily explained to me, but it has been translated by the learned Sessions Judge as a "right to respect," The complainants' case is that they have the exclusive claim to this "right to respect" of the village at festival times and that the applicants have no right or claim to it. It is contended that recently the applicants have been trying to usurp this right and that this is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Action can only be taken under Section 107 if one of three things is present. There must be either (1) a likelihood of the person proceeded against committing a breach of the peace, or (2) disturbing the public tranquillity, or (s) doing any wrongful act which may probably occasion a breach of the peace or a disturbance of the public tranquillity. It is not suggested that the first two grounds are present in this case. The lower Courts have proceeded solely on the ground that the applicants are doing, or are likely to do, a wrongful act which may probably occasion a breach of the peace. The order of the first Court is in these terms: I do not think that the Sanaps and Mundhes have any right in the manpan. It is clear that they want to enjoy manpan at these festivals separately Tekales (the complainants) are bound to prevent them from enjoying the same. So these actions on the part of the non-applicants are likely to lead to the breach of the peace.
(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge concurring with the first Court states: It was however urged in the appellants' behalf that as separate enjoyment of this right was an act which was lawful in itself, there was no reason for proceeding under Section 107, Criminal P.C., even though that act was likely to induce the other side to commit a breach of the peace. In other words, the contention was that Jaw-abiding citizens should not be bound over because of the injured susceptibilities of the patel. To this the short answer is that the community to which he belongs namely the Tekales (Marathas) have the sole right of manpan and, if the Sanaps and Mundhes have, as they will have, a separate manpan they will be committing a wrongful act which will in all probability be responsible for a breach of the peace.
(3.) THE right to manpan was considered in Shiwaji v. Mahadeo (07) 3 N.L.R. 131, and Batten A.J.C. held that no civil suit lies to enforce such a right. He held that the rights claimed were mere symbols of recognition and marks of respect and as such were not capable of being enforced in a civil suit. It is clear then that this is not the kind of right which the law recognizes as being capable of possession by any individual. It follows that no individual can claim the right to its exclusive possession or use. The law will always enforce any right which can be legally claimed or possessed, or made use of. Therefore, if it declines to enforce a claim to rights of, this kind it can only be because it does not recognize the right as a kind of right which can be legally possessed or made use of. It is difficult to see how any person or group can claim the exclusive right to the respect of his or their fellows. It is also difficult to see how any person or group can object to others celebrating festivals in their own way provided of course these others in no way interfere with the separate and different celebrations which such person or group may choose to make. Here the persons who threatened to commit a breach of the peace are not the applicants, who, in my opinion, have every right to celebrate these festivals and to obtain any respect which others voluntarily choose to give them, but the complainants, who claim the right to stop them and who threaten to do so forcibly.