KASAMKHAN AHMEDKHAN MUJAWAR Vs. KAJI ABDULLA KAJI MAHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff, as representative of the Kazi community of Pawas, sets up an exclusive right of officiating at weddings, funerals and other religious rites amongst the Mussalmans of Pawas. Recently there appears to have been a dispute in connexion with the Darga of this village between two sects of Muhammandans there, namely the Kazis and Dakhanis, and admittedly until this dispute arose, the Kazi community of Pawas has, for a large number of years, as held by the two lower Courts, exercised this right of officiating. The defendant, who is the Mujawar of the Darga, has officiated on various occasions, so the plaintiff sues for a declaration of his exclusive right to officiate : for an injunction against disturbance of Ms officiating as a deputy appointed by the Kazis; and. to recover a certain sum as damages for the defendant wrongfully officiating and getting the customary fees.

(2.) The main issue in the case was wored as follows; "Whether the plaintiff as representing the Kazi community of Pawas proves Kazi's exclusive right to officiate at marriage ceremonies and at death rites as alleged?" The trial Court held that the plaintiff had the exclusive right, not only to officiate at marriages, &c, but also to write and register marriage contracts and divorces amongst Muhammadans of Pawas when they are reduced to writing; that he had also the right to charge a fee of Rs, 2-8-0 for every such marriage; that he had a right to officiate at death rites amongst that community and, when certain prayers are recited, to charge his customary dues for the same; and that he had a similar right also as to divorce.

(3.) On appeal the learned District Judge substantially concurred with the view taken by the lower Court as to plaintiff's exclusive right, but decided that the rights could only properly be declared in regard to marriage contracts and divorces. He confirmed that part of the decree of the lower Court and deleted the rest of it, and the plaintiff was awarded Rs. 10 against the defendant as damages.