MUHAMMAD SALIM Vs. RAMKUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is a weaver residing in Mauza Pura Shaikh Maruf, said to be appertaining to Kurthi Jafarpur, and he sued the 17 defendants, who are Hindu residents of Kurthi Jafarpur and other villages in the District of Azamgarh, for a declaration that he in particular and other Musalman residents of the village in general have a right to sacrifice cow specially on the occasions of festivals and Id-uz- zoha, regardless of any rite or custom in Mauza Pura Shaikh Maruf, appertaining to Kurthi Jafarpur, Pergana Ghosi and that the defendants have no right to make interference thereto,

(2.) He also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from offering any sort of obstruction when Musalman residents of the village should offer sacrifice of cows or slaughter them. The cause of action is stated in this para. 4 of the plaint to be that on the occasion of Id-uz-zoha in 1924 the defendants came to the plaintiff's village in large numbers, surrounded it, and told the plaintiff that they would not allow him to offer sacrifice of a cow, and if the sacrifice were offered they would plunder the plaintiff's house as well as those of other Musalman residents, and would kill the plaintiff, and that in consequence of this the plaintiff was afraid to offer the sacrifice and refrained from doing so. Various pleas were raised in defence, the most important of which was that it was the district authorities who prevented the sacrifice of cows at the last Id-uz-zoha. While it was admitted that no sacrifice took place, it was not admitted that the defendants had any hand in preventing it. It was also said that there was no custom of cow sacrifice in the village and that the plaintiff did not own any property in the village, but these matters are not really relevant to the dispute between the parties. Before judgment was pronounced in the lower Court the plaintiff's pleader defined the right claimed by the plaintiff a little more exactly as A right to sacrifice cow in his residential house, or in a house or at any other such safe place the land of which may not be the property of a non-muslim and which may not be exposed to the public view.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge framed a number of issues, many of which have not been discussed before us. He found that the plaintiff had not sued in a representative capacity but that he had a right to bring the suit in his personal capacity, and that every Muhammadan has a right independent of any custom to sacrifice cows and to slaughter them on his land. As regards what happened on the occasion of Id-uz-zoha, after discussing the evidence to some extent, he remarks: My idea is that there was some quarrel between the Hindus and Muhammadans and the latter gave out that they would sacrifice cow on the Baqrid day, that the police got news of it and had agreements executed by the parties, that a report under Section 107, Criminal P. C, was also made, that the parties settled their differences and the Muhammadans refrained from slaughtering cow, but as the rumour had been afloat for some time Hindus had come from outside whom the defendants sent back as the matter had been settled and there was no trouble. There was no interference by the defendants on the Baqrid day, in fact the plaintiff never wished to sacrifice cow, but he has subsequently connected the story that thousands of parsons had collected and threatened to kill him and loot his house.