The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the founder's intention in establishing a mosque and the conditions necessary for conducting Juma prayers, as well as the need for the court to take into account the interests of the public for whom the mosque is dedicated.

1. This is an appeal from a decree in a suit fora declaration that the Musalmans of Alanellur are entitled to conduct'Juma' prayers in the Mosque scheduled to the plaint and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs in the exercise of the above right. The plaint allegations were that the plaint mosque was a Jumayath mosque, that the Muslims of Alanellur required this mosque for conducting juma prayers as it has the amenities of a Jumayath mosque, that it was used as a public mosque for conducting juma prayers also for the last 40 years, that the defendants had no particular right over the mosque in question, that there was another mosque called 'Mundath Mosque near the plaint mosque, that it was difficult to conduct Jumayath prayers in that mosque because of the increase in population, that the defendants' action in approaching the Executive 2nd Class Magistrate and obtaining an order restraining the plaintiffs from carrying on the juma prayers in the plaint mosque was unauthorised, that the plaintiffs had the right to conduct the juma prayers in the plaint mosque and that the order passed by the Magistrate restraining them from conducting juma prayers was illegal and ultra vires.

2. Defendants 1 and 3 to 21 contended that the suit was not maintainable, that the plaintiffs were wahabis who had no hold in the locality, that the plaint mosque was only a Niskarapalli, that no juma prayers were ever conducted there, that the property and the mosque which stood thereon belonged to the father of the 6th defendant, who constructed the mosque for the purpose of enabling the persons who resorted to the nearby market to offer their niskarams, that he never intended the mosque to be used as a place for conducting juma prayers, that the public of the locality did not acquire any right to conduct juma prayers contrary to the intentions of the founder of the mosque, & that neither the 6th defendant nor his predecessor-in-interest ever allowed juma prayers to be conducted in the mosque. It was also contended by them that there could be no juma prayers in the plaint mosque as there was already a mosque in Mundath where alone the Musalmans of the locality should meet for juma prayers, and that the religious texts forbade the conduct of juma prayers in the same mahal.

3. The trial court found that the plaint mosque was a public mosque, that it was founded by the father of the 6th defendant, that the 6th defendant had alienated the property and the mosque, that the plaintiffs had the right to conduct the juma prayers in the mosque and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court on appeal by the defendants confirmed the decree of the trial court and hence the present appeal.

4. The main submission on behalf of the appellants was that there is no finding by either the trial or the lower appellate court as to the intention of the founder in establishing this mosque. Issue No. 5 in the case runs as follows:

"Whether the father of the 6th defendant consented that Juma could be performed in the Mosque?" The finding of the trial court on that issue is,

"... That the place is a public place is conceded by Dw.1 and that settles the matter. That being so, it is unnecessary that the consent of the 6th defendant's father should be obtained for performing the worship in the suit mosque. This issue is found accordingly."

The lower appellate court did not specifically consider this issue, but recorded a finding in para 13 of its judgment to the following effect:

"The ownership of the plaint mosque vests in the public and the conditions for starting a new juma mosque in it are also satisfied. It follows that the defendants are not entitled to resist the suit."

These findings do not answer the question posed by issue No. 5. The finding of the courts below in effect is that Pokker, the father of the 6th defendant had dedicated this mosque to the public, and therefore it

has become a public mosque. That is a concurrent finding of fact and