Back
1955 Supreme(All) 2
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, BEG, JJ.
Haji Mohd. Sayeed
Versus
Abdul Ghafoor
Second Appeal No.1078 of 1950
Decided On : 05-01-1955
N.D. Pant, for Appellants; Mukhtar Ahmad, Shanti Bhushan and Harnandan Prasad, for Respondents.
The right to hold congregational prayers in a mosque is not absolute and may be restricted based on local custom, the potential for disruption of worship, and the principles of equity and good conscience.
Headnote:
MOSQUE - CONGREGATIONAL PRAYERS - RIGHT OF SECTS - CUSTOM - INJUNCTION - RIGHT OF WAY - FACT OF THE CASE - FINDING OF THE COURT - ISSUES - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, representing a sect of Muslims called Ahl-e-Hadis, filed a suit against the defendants, representing a sect called Hanafis, for an injunction to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiffs' right to offer congregational prayers in a mosque and for possession of certain rooms alleged to be part of a hostel for students of their religious school. The defendants resisted the suit, claiming that the mosque was founded by a Hanafi for the purpose of enabling Hanafis to offer prayers and that there was a local custom according to which Hanafis and Ahl-e-Hadis had separate mosques.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that they had no right to hold congregational prayers in the mosque and that the rooms in question belonged to the mosque. The appellate court remanded the case for fresh findings on certain issues and, after receiving the findings, upheld the trial court's decision. It also granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with their right of way to their religious school.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had a right to hold congregational prayers in the mosque? 2. Whether the rooms in question belonged to the mosque or to the plaintiffs' religious school? 3. Whether the plaintiffs had a right of way to their religious school through the galli adjoining the mosque?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs did not have a right to hold congregational prayers in the mosque because: a) The nature of the right to offer prayers individually and the right to hold congregational prayers are different. b) The holding of a second congregation is considered Makruh (improper) according to Islamic law. c) There was a local custom in the town according to which Hanafis and Ahl-e-Hadis had separate mosques. d) Granting the plaintiffs' claim would lead to a breach of the peace and disruption of worship for both sects. 2. The court held that the rooms in question belonged to the mosque and not to the plaintiffs' religious school based on the findings of the lower courts. 3. The court upheld the finding of the lower courts that the plaintiffs had a right of way to their religious school through the galli adjoining the mosque.
Final Decision: The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed with costs. The defendants' cross-objections relating to the right of way were also dismissed with costs.
BEG, J.:- This is a plaintiffs second appeal. It arises out of a suit for injunction and some other reliefs. The suit was brought in a representative capacity against a number of defendants who were also sued in a representative capacity. Both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are Muhammedans residing in the town of Mau Nath Bhanjan in the district of Azamgarh. It appears that among the Muhammedans of this town strained relations have existed between the two sects of Sunni Muslims - one calling itself Ahl-e-Hadis and the other calling itself Hanafi.
The former sect is also nicknamed as Wahabi by the latter. The present suit marks the culmination of a long-standing dispute between them. There appear to be differences between the two sects in the mode of offering prayers and rituals connected therewith. It is said that the Ahl-e-Hadis recite the Sural Fateha or the first chapter of the Quran behind the Imam in a loud tone, but the Hanafis do not recite it.
Further it is said that the Ahl-e-Hadis pronounce the word Amin after Sural Fateha in a loud tone. whereas the Hanafis recite it in an inaudible or low tone. The Ahl-e-Hadis perform the gesture of Rafuul-Yadain (raising of the hands) when pronouncing the Takbir, viz., the words Allaho Akbar (God is Great) and also every time before bending during the prayers, whereas the Hanafis raise their hands during Takbir only once and not higher than the ears. During the prayers the Ahl-e-Hadis fasten their hands over the chest, whereas the Hanafis fasten their hands over the navel. The differences between them had given rise to both civil as well as criminal litigation in the past. In the mosque in dispute the hanafis had been offering prayers behind an Imam of their own for a long time past. Adjoining this mosque there is an Arabic school called the Madrasa-i-Alia which was established by the Ahl-e-Hadis.
In this Madrasa (school) the Ahl-e-Hadis used to educate students of their own sect. This Madrasa faces the mosque on the east with only a galli intervening the two. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs on the allegation that the members of their sect had been offering prayers in this mosque in the past, and that they had an apprehension that the members of the Hanafi sect would restrain them from performing their prayers in future.
They accordingly claimed a relief that the defendants should be restrained from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to offer prayers in a congregation of their own and according to their own rituals. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that there were certain rooms in the said mosque which were constructed by them to be used as a hostel for the students of Madrasa-i-Alia. They claimed possession over these rooms. The plaintiffs further alleged that there was an apprehension that their right of way to Madrasa-i-Alia through the galli which intervened between the school and the mosque would be interfered with.
They, therefore, prayed for a further injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering with their right of way.
2. The suit was resisted by the defendants on a number of grounds. They alleged that the mosque was founded by a Hanafi for the purpose of enabling the Hanafis to offer prayers in the same. They further alleged that in the town of Mau there was prevalent an old custom according to which the Hanafis and the Ahl-e-Hadis had their separate mosques, and the two sects offered their congregational prayers separately in their respective mosques.
The mosque in question was a Hanafi mosque, and the supervision, management and control of the said mosque had always vested in the Hanafis and they were accordingly entitled to hold congregational prayers in it. For the aforesaid reasons they denied that the Ahl-e-Hadis had any right to hold congregational prayers in it. They further alleged that the rooms in question belonged to the mosque, and were a part and parcel of it and denied that they constitute
