1. The first objection taken before us is, that the District Judge was not authorized by law to hold his cutcherry in the Munsif's Court but we do not think that there is any force in this objection. We find that this course was taken with the consent, if not express, yet implied, of both parties. The Judge says, he took the opportunity of his visit to Aurangabad to direct the parties to be present, in order that the cases might be decided, and then we find that the plaintiffs were represented by their pleaders, and probably this course was to the advantage of the plaintiff's, as they had probably already engaged their vakils in the Munsif's Court, where this suit was originally instituted.
2. The next objection taken to the Judge's judgment is, that he is not right in holding that the plaint discloses no cause of action. We think that the view which the Judge has taken of the plaint is correct. Taking all the allegations stated in the plaint as established by evidence, we are of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any of the reliefs expressly mentioned in the plaint, or to any cognate relief which the plaintiffs might have asked the Court to grant upon the plaint. Our view is supported by a recent Madras case of Seshayyangar v. Seshayyangar (I. L. R., 2 Mad., 143). The ruling in that case is to the following effect: 'In India, the members of a sect are at liberty to erect a place of worship on their own property, although it is more or less contiguous to a place already occupied by a place of worship appertaining to another sect. The people of any sect are at liberty to erect, on their own property, places of worship, either public or private, and to perform worship, provided that, in the performance of their worship, they do not cause material annoyance to their neighbours.
3. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal without costs, as no one appears for the respondent.