Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 9

Muhammadan Law-Mosque-Imam incurring displeasure of residents and congregations by his wayward habits and undesirable behaviour-May be removed and be replaced by another.   "Muhammadan Jurisprudence" by Abdur Rahim, p. 384 ref.   Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9-Suit for religious office-Right to office of Imam in mosque-No emoluments attached to office-Suit for declaration of such right-Not maintainable.   Kuni Bihari Prasadji Purshottam Prasadji v. Keshavlal Hiralal and others I L R 28 Bom. 567; Sardar Alf Shah v. Fateh Mohammad Mutawali A I R 1935 Lah. 657 and Debendra Naraix Sarkar and others v. Satya Charan Mukerji and others A I R 1927 Cal. 783 distinguished.   Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42-Relief under S. 42 discretionary with Court-Decree of trial Court also not manifestly unjust-Interference in appeal not necessary-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96.   Dates of hearing: 1st and 2nd October 1964.   JUDGMENT   The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was instituted by Abdus Salam against the defendant-appellants for a declaration to the effect that he was entitled to perform the duties of Pesh Imam in Spin Jumait (white Mosque), situate at Kandi Pir Khel in village Shahbazgarha, district Mardan, and that the defendant-appellants were not entitled to interfere in the perfor mance of his duties as Imam. The plaintiff-respondent also prayed for the grant of a permanent injunction against the defendant -appellants restraining them from interfering with the performance of his duties and in the affairs of the mosque. Originally the suit was brought against defendants Nos. 1 to 8, but later on the plaintiff was permitted to implead as many as fifty-four proprietors as defendants, because a large number of the residents of Kandi Pir Khel were opposed to the continuance in office of Abdus Salam as Imam of the said mosque, and it was not possible for the plaintiff-respondent to sue them individually. So he brought the suit against them in their representative capacity. The plaintiff alleged that the mosque was founded by one of his ancestors, named…