JUDGMENT Niamatullah, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the Plaintiffs for mandatory injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but has been decreed by the lower appellate Court. 2. It is common ground that the Plaintiffs are the present zamindars of village Baheriki in the district of Saharanpur and the Defendant No. I is in the occupation of a house as their riaya. The Plaintiffs' case as laid in the plaint is that, instigated by the other Mohamedan residents of the village, Defendant No. I has built a kachcha chabutra inside his sehan with the intention of eventually converting the site into a mosque and that in furtherance of that design other Mohamedans of that locality are contemplating to use it as a mosque after putting up pacca construction on the site. The Plaintiffs object to the land, which belongs to them, being used in the manner desired by the Defendants They impleaded Defendant No. I and five other persons in a representative capacity so as to make the suit one directed against the entire Mohamedan population of the village. The relief claimed by the Plaintiffs is that a perpetual injunction be issued, restraining the Defendants from constructing any mosque or chabutra intended for prayers being offered thereon. The Plaintiffs farther claim a relief of demolition of the existing chabutra. The defence was that the village orginally belonged to certain Mohamedan zamindars whose rights were sold in execution of a decree and purchased by the Plaintiffs about 15 years before the suit and that the chabutra in question has been in existence for a considerable length of time and has been used as a mosque by the Mohamedan inhabitants of the village. In the lower Courts, it appears to have been assumed that the decision of the case turns on the finding as regards the length of time during which the chabutra in question has been in existence. The trial Court found, referring to the plan of the locality prepared in an earlier case, that the chabutra has been in existence since I905. On that finding the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. The trial Court found, referring to the plan of the locality prepared in an earlier case, that the chabutra has been in existence since I905. On that finding the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. On appeal by the Plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court held, on a review of the entire evidence in the case, that the chabutra has not been in existence as alleged by the Defendants and that it has been constructed recently. Having arrived at that finding the lower appellate Court decreed the Plaintiffs' suit straightaway without pausing to consider whether all the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs could be granted on the above finding. 3. In second appeal it is argued that the finding of the lower appellate Court on the main question of fact is vitiated by the erroneous view taken by it of the admissibility and value of a certa n map prepared by a commissioner appointed by the Court in suit No. 170 of 1905. Even if the view taken by the lower appellate Court on the question of admissibility of this piece of evidence is technically erroneous, I do not think its finding is vitiated. The finding is based on an elaborate consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, produced by both the parties and I must accept it as conclusive in second appeal. Accordingly I must proceed on the assumption that the chabutra in dispute is of recent origin. It seems to me, however, that the age of the chabutra is not so material as has been considered by both the Courts below. If it is as old as alleged by the Defendants, it cannot be considered to be a mosque or anything like it, in the absence of evidence showing dedication by the rightful owner of the site. It is not alleged that the former proprietors had dedicated the site of the chabutra for use as a mosque. The Defendant No. 1 who is only a riaya entitled to occupy it for residential purposes has no right whatever to, dedicate it for use as a mosque by the Mohamedan population of the village. Assuming that he allowed the Mohamedan residents of the locality to occasionally say prayers on the chabutra, it will not on that account assume the characteristics of a mosque or create any right in the Mohamedan residents of the village to use it as a mosque. Assuming that he allowed the Mohamedan residents of the locality to occasionally say prayers on the chabutra, it will not on that account assume the characteristics of a mosque or create any right in the Mohamedan residents of the village to use it as a mosque. The proprietor's right to the site remained unaffected by any use which the occupant of the house himself made and allowed others to make of the portion of its site. In this view, even if the facts alleged by the Defendants had been found in their favour, their case would not have been appreciably improved. On the other hand, the chabutra being admittedly in the courtyard of Defendant No. 1, it is not open to the Plaintiff zamindars to object to his putting up a kachcha chabutra for all domestic purposes, including the use of it as a sitting place, saying prayers and the like. It is equally open to the Defendant No. I to allow his guests or visitors in the ordinary course to use the chabutra for the aforesaid purposes; but the Defendant No. 1 has no right to throw it open to all the Mohamedan residents of the locality for saying their prayers and to use it for all practical purposes as a mosque. There can be no objection to Defendant No. I converting a kachcha chabutra into a pacca one, so long as he does not act in a manner inconsistent with his rights as a riaya entitled to occupy the site for residential purposes. No significance can be attached to the chabutra being a kachcha or pacca. It seems to me that on the finding that the chabutra has been recently built, the lower appellate Court was not justified in ordering its demolition. Having regard to the rights of the parties as stated above and to the circumstances of the case, the relief to which the Plaintiffs are entitled is as follows: It is declared that the chabutra in dispute is not dedicated property but is part and parcel of the Defendant No. I's residential house. The Defendant No. I is at liberty to maintain it as part of his house and to use it for all domestic and residential purposes, including the private right of the members of his family, his visitors and guests to say prayers thereon. The Defendant No. I is at liberty to maintain it as part of his house and to use it for all domestic and residential purposes, including the private right of the members of his family, his visitors and guests to say prayers thereon. Defendant No. I is not at liberty to throw it open for use by the Mohamedans at large as a place for offering prayers. A permanent injunction is issued, restraining Defendant No. I from allowing the chabutra to be used by the Mohamedans of the village as a mosque or a place for offering prayers. An injunction is also issued, restraining the other Defendants from resorting to the chabutra for saying prayers except as guests or casual visitors of Defendant No. I on social occasions. 4. The result is that the appeal is partly allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court, directing the demolition of the chabutra is set aside and a decree for injunction in the above terms is passed in modification of the decree of the lower appellate Court. In all the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to pay their own costs throughout.