The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a property becomes a wakf, it is vested in God and neither the person who dedicated the land as wakf nor the Committee which administers such wakf has got any proprietary right therein. The judgment also emphasizes the fundamental concept of universal brotherhood and the right recognized by Islamic Law relating to prayer in a mosque and the burial in a public grave, which cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the practical implementation of such concept would weaken the organizational set up of the Mahal.

1. The defendants in O.S.No.26 of 1984 on the file of the Munsiff's Court of Alathur are the appellants in this Second Appeal.

2. The respondents herein filed the above suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs have the right of burial in the plaint schedule property and for issue of a perpecutal injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right of burial in the plaint schedule property and also with their right to offer Janaza prayer in the mosque therein.

3. It is the plaintiffs' case that the plaint schedule property was purchased for the Jamaath of Muslims of Mangalam Dam as per Ext.A1 document and subsequent to this transaction, the plaint schedule property was utilised as the burial ground of Sunni Muslims of Vandazhi Village, Mangalam Dam desom. A mosque was also constructed in the plaint schedule property for the purpose of performance of Janaza prayers. It was also, alleged that Sunni Muslims of Mangalam Dam have got a right to use the plaint schedule property as burial ground and to offer Janaza prayers in the mosque in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs were members of Mangalam Dam Sunnath Juma mosque. Since some of the members were dissatisfied with the management of the committee and apprehended that the committee may raise objections in the burial of such members, O.S.No.33 of 1981 was filed. It culminated in a compromise evidenced by Ext.A2 according to which it was conceded that plaintiffs in that suit have right to bury the dead body in the plaint schedule property. Some of the plaintiffs started a new mosque by name 'Vadakkekalam Mohiyiddin Jumaath Palli; but according to the plaintiffs, they continued to be members of the Mangalam Dam Jamaath. However, the defendants raised objections to their offering prayers at the burial ground and declared openly that the plaintiffs would not be permitted to use the plaint schedule property as burial ground. Therefore, the Secretary of the Mohiyiddin Juma Mosque lodged a complaint before the District Collector of Palghat on 25-12-1982. Again on 30-12-82 Secretary of the Mohiyiddin Juma Mosque made representations to a Parliament Member and also to the Circle Inspector of Police, Alathur. Proceedings under S.145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also sought, to be instiutted. When the dead body of one Veera Umma was taken to the plaint schedule property for burial the defendants raised objection. Ultimately the police intervened and the body was buried. The members of Mohiyiddin Jamaath including the plaintiffs have no other burial ground except the plaint schedule property. It is with these averments the suit was filed.

4.Defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement denying the right of the plaintiffs to bury the dead bodies in the plaint schedule property. It was admitted in the written statement that the plaint schedule property was purchased for the purpose of the Muslims of Mangalam Dam Jamaath. But the rights to use the burial ground and to offer Janaza prayers are vested only in the members of the Mangalam Dam Juma Mosque. The plaintiffs ceased to be members of the Mangalam Dam Juma Mosque and they are members of Mohiyiddin Jamaath and therefore they are not entitled to any reliefs. It was also contended that the compromise evidenced by Ext.A2 would apply only to the parties in that suit.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that only the members of Mangalam Dam Jamaath have got the legal right to use the burial ground.

6. On appeal to the court of Subordinate Judge of Palghat in A.S.No.158 of .1985, the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed and a decree as prayed for was passed holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs.

7. In this Second Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the decree granting reliefs of declaration of right of burial and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with such right.

8. The main contention raised by the learned