BABU RAM SINGH Vs. SUBHAN MOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit by two Mahomedan plaintiffs asking for two reliefs, the material portions of which are as follows: (a) It may be declared by the Court that the plaintiffs are authorized to take out the "duldul" procession on the fourth of Muharram of every year without any obstruction or interference. (b) A perpetual injunction may be issued to the Hindus... and the Secretary of State for India restraining them from offering any obstruction in future to the "duldul" procession... As the stoppage of the "duldul" procession is due to the interference and orders of the Government servants and officers, it is necessary to implead the Secretary of State for India....

(2.) The facts are broadly stated in the judgment of both the two lower Courts and no objection has been taken on either side before us that the facts have not been correctly stated. The case comes from the district of Ghazipur, and trouble between the Hindus and Mahomedans is said to have started as long ago at any rate as 1911, but does not appear to have come to a head in the particular locality concerned till 1920. In 1920, as the trial Court has found, a finding concurred in by the lower appellate Court, the Mahomedans for the first time proceeded to take out the "duldul" procession. Petitions indicated that this was likely to result in serious trouble, and it is clear that the authorities collected the leaders of the various parties and effected a settlement. An agreement was entered into on 7th October 1920, a translation of the material portion of which is to be found on p. 29 of the paper book. Counsel on either side before us have expressly stated that they had no fault to find with that translation. It is vital to this case, and we reproduce it from the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It reads: As often Hindus and Mahomedans and Aryasamajists carry out new sorts of processions inside the qasba which hurt the feelings of some party, so we agree that we will not carry out a new procession without applying beforehand to the District Magistrate and obtaining his sanction thereto. There is no necessity of taking sanction for ancient processions.

(3.) This agreement was signed by ten Mahomedans and some 20 Hindus, the latter including, as we are told, those who signed it on behalf of the Hindus generally and those who signed it particularly on behalf of the Aryasamaj. In subsequent years, 1921, 1922 and 1923, there was some friction; but counsel for the plaintiffs has not been able to show us that there is any evidence that the "duldul" procession was actually taken out either with or without the District Magistrate's sanction in 1921, 1922 or 1923. The present suit asking for the reliefs which we have set out at the commencement of this judgment was filed on 10th day of May 1924.