JUDGMENT

Young, C J - This is an appeal from the Court of the learned District Judge of Lahore. The plaintiffs brought a suit in the lower Court praying for a declaration that a certain parcel of land known in this case as Shahid Ganj was and is the site of a wakf mosque, dedicated to God; that the mosque could not be used for any purpose which, according to Mahomedan law, was opposed to the purposes of a mosque, and that plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 18, and also all other followers of Islam, had a right to use the mosque for the purposes of worship without let or hindrance by any one. Consequential relief was claimed in the form of a mandatory injunction to the following effect, that the defendants: (a) Should not use plaintiff No. 1 (i.e the mosque itself) for any purpose which may be contrary to its sanctity and use according to Mahomedan law; (b) Should not in any way interfere in the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 18's rights of worship relating to the said mosque; and (c) Should re-construct the portion of the mosque which was demolished by them on the night between 7th and 8th July 1935, in the same shape and form as it was before demolition. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed damages for the demolition so that they might rebuild it in its former shape. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs did not sue for possession.

2. By their defence the defendants, that is the Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and another, who are in possession of the site, denied that the building was a mosque, claimed that the suit was barred by (a) the principle of res judicata, (b) by the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, (c) by decision of the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal, dated 20th January 1930, and that the suit was not within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act. The learned District Judge found that the building was in its origin wakf, that is originally dedicated for prayers in 1722, but that it had not been used as a mosque for prayers since 1762. He decided that the claim was not within limitation, and was barred by the decision of the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal and the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, but not by the decisions of the Courts between 1850 and 1883. He held that the defendants had acquired a title by adverse possession and that plaintiff No. 1, that is the mosque itself, was a juristic person capable of suing through its next friend.

3. The facts which are proved, and accepted by the parties, are that in the year 1722 the mosque was erected, dedicated to God, and used as a mosque until the establishment of Sikh Rule in the year 1762; that from the year 1762 till the institution of the suit the building had not been used as a mosque or place of worship; that two actions had been brought by a descendant of the original Mutwalli of the mosque in 1854 and 1855, but both these actions had failed on the ground of limitation; that in 1925 the Sikh Gurdwaras Act was passed and the question was litigated under that Act as to whom this property belonged; the Anjuman Islamia of Lahore filed a petition on behalf of the Muslims under Section 5 of the Act praying that the mosque should be excluded from the consolidated list, and an issue was framed as to what right, title or interest the Anjuman had in the property claimed; the tribunal decided that the Anjuman had no right, title or interest in the property; that on the night of 7th July 1935 the Sikhs demolished the mosque.

4. From the date of their possession in 1762 the Sikhs have used this building as their own. In one of the domes they kept the Guru Granth Sahib until about the year 1883 when the dilapidation of the building made it dangerous for the Granth Sahib still to be kept there. The Sikhs have also for many years let the building on rent to tenant's, and for the use of the tenants they placed a latrine upon the roof. These facts have not been challenged here in appeal. Mr. Badri Das on behalf of the respondents accepts the findings that the mosque as an institution is a juri