The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reading of the Koran, whether in public or private places, is a valid object of a wakf under Mohammadan Law.

1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed by the trial court but dismissed by the court below, in appeal by the defendants.

2. The plaint property originally belonged to Unnipathumma. On her death, Moyankutty the plaintiff's father and his brothers divided the same along with other properties under Ext. Al partition deed dated 2-10-1080.

The partition deed mentioned that the income from the plaint property should be devoted for the purpose of reciting Koran for the salvation of the souls of Unnipathumma and other ancestors of the parties. The plaintiff's father was constituted the first manager of the property with obligation to see to the proper recitation of the Koran. On his default to do so, the other parties were to appoint one among them to manage. According to the plaintiff his father managed without default till his death and thereafter he had been doing so. The defendants had been let into occupation of a house in the property under lease by the plaintiff. They were now trespassing into the property and committing waste and also attempting to put up other houses. So the suit was laid for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing waste in the plaint property or improving the same. The defendants accepted the original arrangements under Ext. Al under which the plaintiff's father came into management, but they contended that he was dispossessed by his brothers on account of his default and they were, as the sons of a brother, rightfully in present management and the plaintiff had accordingly no locus standi to maintain the suit. They also questioned the allegations as to waste and improvements. The simple questions that thus arose on the pleadings were how far the plaintiff was the wakf manager and whether he was entitled to damages or injunction. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence, found that the story of the plaintiff's father's displacement set up by the defendants was untrue but because the document Ext. Al was silent as to future management after the death of the plaintiff's father or his brothers, the plaintiff could not claim proper appointment as wakf at present: As person in de-facto management of the property, however, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit. In appeal, the learned Sub Judge of South Malabar, allowed fresh point to be taken as to the validity of the wakf constituted under Ext. Al and having found this in the negative, he dismissed the suit, without more, because the parties were then in the position of co-owners of ordinary property and the suit for injunction as framed could not lie.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, appellant urges before me that the court below was wrong in entertaining the plea as to the validity of the wakf which not only did not arise on, but was even negatived in, the pleadings and that even so, it was wrong in its conclusion on the merits. Mr. Pocker appearing for the respondents defendants replied by saying that the question did not after all involve the ascertainment of any new facts but turned only on the application of Mohammadan Law to the recitals in Ext. AI and was therefore properly gone into. He also supported the finding of the court below that the wakf was invalid.

4. On the first question as to the propriety of the court below in entertaining the fresh point in appeal it is well settled that parties ought not to be permitted to raise new points not covered by the pleadings or the issues. No appellate court will be justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court without pleadings being amended and the necessary issues being raised. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never nut forward. See Chandrikamba v. Viswanathamayya, A.I.R. 1933 P. C. 117 where the Privy Council refused to allow a new point to be raised before it without any pleadings or evidence on it. There is no doubt the observation of Lord Watson in Connect