VEERASWAMI, C.J. :- It seems to us that the decree of the lower appellate Court which reversed the trial Court's decree cannot be sustained. The plaintiffs are caste Hindus who brought the suit for a declaration that they and their representatives were exclusively entitled to use the suit property for burial and cremation and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants and the persons they represent from using that property for that purpose. Both the Courts have found that the suit site covered by S. No. 36/8 had been as a matter of fact used exclusively by the caste Hindus and such user by custom has also been established. The trial Court was of the view that the custom was unreasonable in view of the provisions of Act 22 of 1955. But in this respect the lower appellate Court differed. In its view, the custom established could not be said to be unreasonable.

2. We are of the view that Section 4 (iv) read with Sections 13 and 16 of Act 22 of 1955 leaves no room for doubt that no injunction against the appellants could be given. Section 4 (iv) is specific that whoever on the ground of untouchability enforces against any person any disability with regard to the use