JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J. This Suit was brought by certain Hindu zamindars for alleged misuse of land in the abadi let by them to a Mohammedan tenant. The allegation is that the land was originally let in the ordinary way for a dwelling house to a tenant. The finding is that there was a certain shed in the yard, the original use of which was not specified, that a number of Mohammedans, with the consent of the tenant, used to say their prayers there, that thereafter the tenant erected upon the site of the perishable shed a permanent building which he himself describes as a mosque. The plaintiffs deny the right of the defendants to erect such a permanent building for religious purposes, and pray for its demolition. In the defendant's defence they say that the place is a mosque, and that the building is on the same site as the shed previously used for their religious observances. The Munsif decreed this part of the claim and the present respondent appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for the demolition of the building upon findings which in our opinion form an insufficient basis for his conclusion. He says that because there was an old shed used for religious observances, the old shed being of a frail and temporary kind, it could be replaced by a permanent mosque in which the same kind of observances should continue. He hold, in effect, that the defendant had title to erect such a building. It seems to us that he has not fully considered the nature of the tenure of land of a village site, It is held by tenants for dwelling houses and what are understood to be ordinary appendages of a dwelling house. 2. In deed it seems to us as impossible to contend that a tenant is entitled to erect a permanent mosque as that he is entitled to erect premises for some manufacture. The provisions of the Wajib-ul-arz indicate with sufficient clearness that the land of the village site falls within the ordinary provisions relative to the abadi. It is expressly provided that no cultivator can build a house outside, the compound of his dwelling house without the zemindar's permission. He is at liberty to do so in his compound. The provisions of the Wajib-ul-arz indicate with sufficient clearness that the land of the village site falls within the ordinary provisions relative to the abadi. It is expressly provided that no cultivator can build a house outside, the compound of his dwelling house without the zemindar's permission. He is at liberty to do so in his compound. When a cultivator absconds the zemindar becomes the owner of his house, & c, This enables a tenant to build a dwelling house in his compound, but in the case of erection of a mosque which would by dedication become vested in the religious body for whose observances it was used, the contention of the defendants is manifestly baseless in point of Law, Every villager knows perfectly well the nature of his rights in the abadi, and it is impossible to believe that any tenant in an abadi could bona fide believe that he had a right to dedicate for ever to religious uses, to the detriment of the landlord, such portion of the abadi as he was allowed to occupy as a residential house. 3. Nothing would establish the case of the defendant based on acquiescence except what appears to us the impossible finding that in erecting his permanent mosque, he bonafide believed he was acting within his rights, We think, therefore, that the learned Judge was wrong, and that the appeal must be decreed, We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower court and restore that of the court of first instance with costs in all courts