MAHOMED HANIF SAHIB Vs. ANAGAPPA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this second appeal, representing1 the Muhammadan residents of Lalgudi, appeal against a decree of the Snbordinate Judge of Trichinopoly granted in favour of the respondents, who sued as representatives of the Hindu residents of the same village. The decree in question declares the rights of the plaintiffs (respondents) in connection with the celebration of the annual Mariamman festival at the "Mariamman Medai" and gives an injunction forbidding interference by the defendants (appellants).

(2.) The dispute arises out of the proximity of the Medai to a Muhammadan mosque, and the alleged interference with worship of the latter incidental to the use of music by respondents in connection with their festival.

(3.) The first objection taken by appellants is that the decree of the Subordinate Judge is illegal, inasmuch as it goes beyond the general nature of the deoree granted in a somewhat similar case by this Court vide Muthialu Chetty v. Bapun Sahib 2 M. 140. No doubt the decree now under appeal is not more specific; but it is not on that account illegal. It is desirable that the Court by its decree should determine the rights in dispute as definitely as the evidence before it will permit; and we can find nothing either in the judgment in Muthialu Chetty v. Bapun Sahib 2 M. 140 or in the later judgment in Sundram Chetti v. Queen and Ponnusami Chetti v. Qusen 6 M. 203 : 2 Weir 77 in which its meaning was discussed and explained, to suggest that the learned Judges who decided those cases took a different view.