( 1 ) THIS, is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that plaintiff 1 was the mutwalli of the mosque in dispute and none of the defendants had any connection with the mutwalliship; that Amanullah, plaintiff 4, was the duty appointed Imam of the mosque and none of the defendants had any right to imamship; and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs in going to the mosque and offering their prayers under the imamship of a person according to their choice, and for further direction to the defendants not to interfere with the management of the mosque by plaintiff 1. The suit was filed by eleven Muslim residents of the town of Chandauli, in the district of banaras, as representatives of their community under Order 1, Rule 8 of Schedule I, Civil P. C. The defendants to the suit were one hundred and forty eight Muslims.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case was that the mosque was a public waqf, that the Muhammadans or Bazar chandauli had always been offering their prayers in it that Abdul Rahman, plaintiff 1, who resided in the vicinity of the mosque was managing the mosque as its mutwalli with the consent of the worshippers and that defendant 1 who claimed to be the mutwalli interfered with the management of the mosque by plaintiff 1 and with the functioning of plantiff 4 as pesh Imam.

( 3 ) SOME of the defendants contested the suit and alleged that Jangi Khan, father of defendants 1 to 3, was the mutwalli of the mosque during his lifetime, and that after him defendant 1 was the present mutwalli. The rights of plaintiff 1 to act as a mutwalli, and of plaintiff 4 to act as pesh imam were disputed.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit in part declaring that Abdul Rahman, plaintiff 1, was the mutwalli of the mosque. It also issued an injunction to the defendants restraining them from interfering with the right of management of the mosque by plaintiff 1 and with the right of the plaintiffs to enter the mosque and to offer prayers. The rest of the plaintiffs claim was dismissed.

( 5 ) AGAINST its judgment and decree ten of the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned civil Judge; the plaintiffs filed a cross-objection. When the appeal came up before the learned civil Judge for hearing a compromise was entered into on behalf of the parties. The compromise was signed by Bashir Ahmad Khan, defendant 1, and Abdul, Rahman, plaintiff 1, and also by the learned counsel, for the parties. A decree in terms of the compromise. , was passed.

( 6 ) SOME of the plaintiffs who had not signed the compromise brought a second appeal to this court and contended that the compromise was not binding on them. Abdul Rahman who was a signatory to the compromise was joined as a respondent. A preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal was taken that the appeal being from a consent decree ho second appeal lay to this court. The learned single Judge accepted this contention and held that the appeal did not lie. He therefore dismissed the appeal but granted leave to file an appeal under the Letters Patent, and hence this appeal.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants urged two points before us. First, that the decree passed by the Court below was not a valid consent decree because it offended against the provisions of section 51, U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, No. 13 of 1936; and, secondly, that even if it was a valid consent decree, an appeal against it was not barred under Section 96 (3), Civil P. C. , as that section barred appeals only against original decrees.

( 8 ) AS regards the first point, we have to see whether Section 51, U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, applies to the case or not. That section reads as follows:

"no suit or proceedings in any Court by or against a mutwalli of a waqf to which this Act applies, and relating to title to waqf property or to the rights of the mutwalli shall be compromised without the sanction of the Central Board".

The Muslims Waqfs Act applies to pu