Skip to content


Subhan Mochi and anr. Vs. Babu Ram Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All121a
AppellantSubhan Mochi and anr.
RespondentBabu Ram Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - the sub-divisional officer intervened with the hope of getting the relations of the hindu and mohammedan communities on a better footing and on 7th october 1920 an agreement was signed......community to take out any new religious procession at all. the valuation of the suit is, of course, nominal. the relief that is wanted is the declararation sought for. we are of opinion that this is a matter which is of general importance to both communities hindus and mahomedans and that it is, in the language of section 109, civil p. c, otherwise a fit case for appeal to his majesty in council. under these circumstances we grant leave to appeal.
Judgment:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and the history of the litigation is as follows: In the year 1911 some quarrels broke out in Rasra, a Tahsil in the district of Ballia, between Hindus and Mohammedans over the slaughter of cows. It is said that both communities from that time onwards were not unwilling to annoy the other, and it is also said that in 1920 a serious quarrel arose over an innovation on 4th day of Moharram, the innovation being a procession called the 'dul dul' procession, which never previously had been held there. The Sub-Divisional Officer intervened with the hope of getting the relations of the Hindu and Mohammedan communities on a better footing and on 7th October 1920 an agreement was signed. The plaintiffs contended that this was not a representative agreement. The defendants contended that it was. Considerable difficulties are said to have arisen on each occasion of Moharram from 1920 until this present suit was instituted. The relief that was claimed was that the Court might declare that the plaintiffs were authorized to take out the 'dul-dul' procession on 4th day of Moharram of every year without any obstruction or interference. It asked for a perpetual injunction issued to the Hindus of qasba Rasra and the Secretary of State restraining them from any obstruction in future to the taking out of that procession. The relief asked for was granted by the Court of first instance and that decision was upheld on 31st August 1925 The matter came up in second appeal before this Court. The Judges, in second appeal, set aside the decree of Ali Ausat, and it is contended that the effect of the second appeal is very wide in its application and of great importance not merely to the Mohamedan community in qasba Rasra, but generally. Dr. Siddiqui, who appears for the proposed appellants, says that the judgment in fact amounts to an assertion that it is incompetent for members of the Mohamedan community to take out any new religious procession at all. The valuation of the suit is, of course, nominal. The relief that is wanted is the declararation sought for. We are of opinion that this is a matter which is of general importance to both communities Hindus and Mahomedans and that it is, in the language of Section 109, Civil P. C, otherwise a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council. Under these circumstances we grant leave to appeal.


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