In the absence of a positive rule of law, courts may apply principles of equity, justice, and good conscience to decide religious practice disputes. Precedents may guide the court's decision on matters such as congregational worship.

1. There is an ancient mosque known as Mohideen Palli situate in Calicut. For a long time the mosque was under the exclusive management of a family known as Pocker Hajiarakath. In due course the worshippers at the mosque felt the necessity for greater interference on their part in the affairs of the mosque; and in a public meeting convened on 7th September 1947 a body called "The Palayam Mohideen Palli Paripalana Committee" (shortly the committee) was constituted for assuming the management of the mosque and its assets. The committee in due course framed a constitution, drew up the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the body and made certain rules and bye-laws. The 2nd defendant functioned as the Imam of the mosque under the committee. Matters went on smoothly till 27th January 1957, when the services of the 2nd defendant were terminated by the then committee. An attempt for reinstatement of the 2nd defendant as Imam, made by his supporters did not succeed. The result was the emergence of a rival faction which chose to call itself as the group of orthodox Sunnis. According to that dissident group the committee as well as its supportes were Wahabis having certain progressive ideas in matters of religion. When the activities of the two groups transgressed reasonable limits the police interfered; and a general body meeting was held on 25th May 1958 at the Calicut Town Hall for reconciling the two factions. That meeting, far from patching up the quarrel only widened the rift. Proceedings were thereafter initiated under S.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as M.C. 10/1958. The committee simultaneously moved the Civil Court and instituted O.S. 1111/ 1958 for an injunction and allied reliefs. In M. C. 10/1951 a tentative agreement was arrived at between the two groups whereby each group was permitted to have its prayers conducted in the mosque at specified hours. O.S. 1111/1958 was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. The interim arrangement made in the M.C. proceedings was soon felt to be unsatisfactory by the committee. It appears that the dissident group began to conduct congregational prayers under an Imam of their choice. The committee thereupon as 1st plaintiff instituted the suit which gave rise to this appeal. The 2nd plaintiff is the Imam duly appointed by the committee. The main prayer in the suit is for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from organising either by themselves or through their agents congregational prayers in the mosque under the leadership of the 1st defendant or any other Imam than the 2nd plaintiff or any other Imam duly appointed by the 1st plaintiff committee.

2. Pending suit the 2nd defendant died. The suit was resisted on various grounds including attacks on the constitution, and representative capacity of the committee, defects in management and the irregularity committed by the committee in the matter of convening the general body meeting on 25th May 1958. The trial court decreed the suit and issued the prohibitory order in the following terms:

"The defendants are perpetually restrained from organising either by themselves or through their agents congregational prayers in the Mohideen Palli in Nagaram Amsom and Desom, Kozhikode taluk under the leadership of the 1st defendant or any other I mam other than the 2nd plaintiff or other Imam duly appointed by the 1st plaintiff-committee."

The trial court also made it clear that the defendants are at liberty to offer their prayers individually or behind the 2nd plaintiff or any other Imam duly appointed by the 1st plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 3 to 8 took the matter in appeal as A. S.216/1968. The lower appellate court left some of the issues open and confirmed the injunction issued by the trial court. Hence this second appeal by defendants 1 and 3 to 8.

3. In as much as the right of the appellants and their supporters to conduct worship individually at the mosque in dispute is already declared by the cour