C MOHAMMAD YUNUS Vs. SYED UNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THERE is in the village of Cavelong, District Chingleput in the State of Madras an ancient Durgah to which is appurtenant a Masjid. The Nawab of Carnatic had granted two villages in inam for the maintenance of the Durgah and the Masjid. Offerings from the devotees who visited the Durgah and the Masjid were also received. The income of-the institution after disbursing the expenses of 'Sandal', and 'Urs' and of feeding the poor has since long been shared by descendants in four families in equal shares. By 'Custom females and persons claiming through females were excluded from receiving a share of the income and the income was distributed amongst the males descended 'in the male fine. In original suit No. 27 of 1940 of the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, a scheme was framed for Administration of the Durgah and the Masjid and a Board of trustees was appointed for that purpose. By the scheme, provision was. made for distribution of the surplus income amongst the members of the four families.

(3.) IN our view, the suit as framed was maintainable. The management of the institution is vested in the trustees. The four families, it is true, are by tradition entitled to perform and officiate at certain ceremonies and also to share in the income. A suit for declaration with a consequential relief for injunction, is not a suit for declaration simpliciter; it is a suit for declaration with further relief. Whether the further relief claimed in a particular case as consequential upon a declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. IN Kunj Behari Prasadji Purshottam Prasadji v. Keshavlal Hiralal (1), it was held that s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act does not empower the court to dismiss a suit for a declaration and injunction and that an injunction is a further relief within the meaning of s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. IN that case, the plaintiff had claimed that a certain will was null and void and that being a close relative of the last holder of a gadi, he was entitled to be the Acharya in the place of that last holder and for an injunction restraining the defendants from offering any obstruction to his occupation of the gadi. It was held that such a suit was maintainable.