Skip to content


Niadar and anr. Vs. Tika and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.45
AppellantNiadar and anr.
RespondentTika and ors.
Excerpt:
muhammadan law - saying of prayers on the land of another--custom--illegal. - - one of the well-settled rules of the muhammadan law is that a muhammadan cannot say his prayers on the property belonging to another without an express or implied permission of the owner of the property......evidence on (the) record to prove that the plaintiffs have been reading their namaz on the land.' the plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this court. the memorandum of appeal contains three pleas. the first is that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the plaintiffs acquired by custom the right to say id and bakrid prayers on the land in question. the second is that the existence of shade trees over the land in question is a piece of evidence in favour of the appellants. the third is that there is no evidence to support the finding of the lower appellate court that no custom has been proved. one of the well-settled rules of the muhammadan law is that a muhammadan cannot say his prayers on the property belonging to another without an express or implied permission.....
Judgment:

Karamat Husain, J.

1. This was a suit by certain dhobis for a declaration that they and other Muhammadans of the village have a right to say their prayers on Id days on the land in dispute. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim and the decree of that Court was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. That Court towards the end of its judgment remarks: No custom has been proved and there is no sufficient evidence on (the) record to prove that the plaintiffs have been reading their namaz on the land.' The plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this Court. The memorandum of appeal contains three pleas. The first is that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the plaintiffs acquired by custom the right to say Id and Bakrid prayers on the land in question. The second is that the existence of shade trees over the land in question is a piece of evidence in favour of the appellants. The third is that there is no evidence to support the finding of the lower appellate Court that no custom has been proved. One of the well-settled rules of the Muhammadan Law is that a Muhammadan cannot say his prayers on the property belonging to another without an express or implied permission of the owner of the property. That being so, a Muhammadan cannot acquire any right to say prayers on the land of any other person by custom. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //