JAFAR HUSAIN Vs. PEAREY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a perpetual injunction which has been granted by the lower appellate Court. The defendants have appealed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondents represent the Hindu population of village Aghwanpur (Mughalpur) in the District of Moradabad. The defendants were impleaded in a representative capacity and defended the suit on behalf of the Muslim community of the same village. The plaintiffs case was that they desired to celebrate Ram Lila in 1932 arid to take out a procession from a certain place in the village to another place in five same village. The Mahomedans objected on the ground that both the Ram Lila and the procession were "innovations" and that the Hindus had no right either to celebrate the Ram Lila or to take out any procession, as they were opposed to the sentiments of the local Muslims. It appears that the District authorities embarked upon an inquiry as to whether Ram Lila had been celebrated in previous years and as to whether the procession attempted to be taken out by the Hindus had been taken out on previous occasions. They also appear to have made an attempt to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, but failed. Eventually an order under Section 144, Criminal P.C. was passed prohibiting the performance of Ram Lila and taking out the procession. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted for an injunction restraining the defendant (Mahomedans) from interfering with, the right of the Hindus to take out procession and to celebrate the Ram Lila. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs (the Hindus) that Ram Lila had been celebrated in the village for many years in the past and that the procession was a ceremony connected with the Ram Lila celebration. The defendants (Mahomedans), on the other hand, maintained that both these functions were recently thought of and should not be allowed. They disputed the right of the Hindus to celebrate the Ram Lila at certain places and to take out a procession contrary to the established practice. The trial Court held that Ram Lila celebration was an old institution in the village, and to that extent the injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs was granted. As regards the right to take out a procession by the plaintiffs, the trial Court's view was that it was an innovation. Accordingly the injunction prayed for was refused by that Court. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, and the defendants filed cross- objections impugning the finding of the trial Court so far as it permitted the celebration of Ram Lila at certain places. The lower appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court as regards the celebration of Ram Lila and maintained the decree appealed from to that extent. As regards the right to take out procession, the lower appellate Court held: That although the processions are an innovation, the plaintiffs are entitled to take them out on the public roads subject, of course, to limitations as to time place and manner as may be imposed upon them by the district authorities under the powers given to them, for the prevention of the breaches of the peace.

(3.) In the present second appeal filed by the defendants a number of grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal. They are somewhat discursive, and may be compressed into the following: (1) That it is not open to the Hindus to celebrate Ram Lila at given places and to take out processions contrary to the local usage. (2) That the two enclosures in which the Hindus desire to celebrate did not belong to the plaintiffs and therefore no injunction could be obtained by them restraining the Mahomedans from interfering with the celebration of the Ram Lila. (3) That the taking out or procession being an innovation as found lay the lower Courts, the Hindus have no right to take them out and no injunction shouldbe issued, as prayed by the plaintiffs.