Judgment LAKSHMIKANTA JHA, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defts, under Cl. 10, Letters Patent, from a decision of a Single Judge of this Ct. It arises out of a representative suit under O. 1, R. 8, Civil P. C, for a declaration that the pltfs. & other Muham- madan inhabitants of village Trimohan in the district of Darbhanga are entitled, from time immemorial, to sacrifice & kill cows & bullocks on Bakrid & other occasions under purdah in an enclosed place without any interference or objection by the Hindus of the village & also for a perpetual injunction against the defts. restraining them from interfering with their right. 2. It appears that the Muhammadans of village Trimohan attempted to slaughter cows on the Bakrid day in 1941, & on an interference by the Hindus of the village a case u/s. 107, Cr. P. C, was started & the Muhammadans were restrained from sacrificing cows in the village. The pltis have accordingly instituted the present suit as the representatives of the Muhammadans of the village, impleading the Hindu inhabitants as defts., for the reliefs already stated. 3. The defence of the Hindus, in short, is that there is a custom in the village prohibiting sacrifice of cows & bullocks on Bakrid day or on any other occasion, & by reason of such custom the- Muhammadans have desisted from slaughtering cows in the village from time immemorial. 4. The trial Ct. on a consideration of the entire oral & documentary evidence in the case held that the Hindus failed to prove the custom as alleged by them & declared that the pltfs. & other Mubammadans of the village have the right "to sacrifice & slaughter kine in the village with quiet & decency in enclosed premises exclusively in their possession on Bakrid & other occasions". The suit was accordingly decreed & the Hindus were permanently restrained from interfering with this right. 5. On appeal by the defts., the learned subordinate Judge, before whom the case came up for hearing, set aside the decree of the trial Ct. & held that the defts. proved the custom alleged by them & that it was "ancient, uniform, undoubted & continuous". 5. On appeal by the defts., the learned subordinate Judge, before whom the case came up for hearing, set aside the decree of the trial Ct. & held that the defts. proved the custom alleged by them & that it was "ancient, uniform, undoubted & continuous". He found that "they (Muhammadans) refrained from doing so out of regard for the Hindus, who were in greater number, & who had very strong feelings on the ,point of cow sacrifices &, in course of time, this forbearance appears to have ripened into a custom directly & completely prohibiting cow sacrifice in the village It cannot be said that this is a case of mere non-exercise of the right to sacrifice cow by the Muhammadans for a number of years." 6. There was a second appeal by the pltfs. to this Ct. which came up for hearing before Shearer, J. He has held: "Even if the learned subordinate Judge is correct in assuming that, until 1941, the Muhammadans of this village neither exercised nor attempted to exercise this right, it is difficult to understand on what principle they could, by their own action, have prevented themselves from ever exercising it in future. No local custom of this kind appears ever to have been judicially recognised &, if judicial recognition was sought, it might well, I imagine, be refused on the ground that it would be unreasonable that Muhammadans should have a right to kill cows elsewhere but should not have a right to do so within their own village, although it is in their own homes or the homes of their relations & neighbours that their religion contemplates such sacrifices will be performed." In this view he has reversed the decision of the Ct. of appeal below & restored the decree of the trial Ct. with slight modification. 7 I have given a most anxious consideration to the matter & I do not think the view taken by Shearer, J. can be supported. If a custom like the one pleaded by the Hindus in the present case be proved, the rights of the Muhammadans to slaughter kine, even in privacy, can be defeated even though the custom has not been judicially recognised on any previous occasion. If a custom like the one pleaded by the Hindus in the present case be proved, the rights of the Muhammadans to slaughter kine, even in privacy, can be defeated even though the custom has not been judicially recognised on any previous occasion. A similar custom was pleaded in Shahbaz Khan V/s. Umrao Puri, (30 All 181), Naubahar Singh V/s. Qadir Bux, (AIR (17) 1930 All 753); & Mahadeo Prasad v. Nabi Bukhsh, (25 IC 104), but the Hindus lost their case because they failed to prove the custom alleged by them. It was never suggested in any of these cases that such custom, even if proved, could not be enforced on the ground of unreasonableness. 8. The legal right of the Muhammadans to kill their own cows in privacy, as alleged by the pltfs., cannot be disputed. It is a well known rule of jurisprudence that every man is entitled to so use hiszz own property as not to injure the rights of another (sic uteri tuo ut alienum non Iaedas). He can,, therefore, even cause destruction of his own property if by his act he does not cause injury, danger or annoyance to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity. The Muhammadans do not found their right to (kill cows on festive occasions on any custom. (According to them their ecclesiastical law enjoins "the sacrifice of a camel, a buffalo, a cow, a sheep, or any other quadruped, whose meat is lawful food to the Muslim". (vide Shahbaz Khan v. Umrao Puri, (30 All 181); Naubahar Singh v. Qadir Bux, (AIR (17) 1930 All 753)). But the Hindus object to the exercise of such right by the Muhammadans on the ground of a local custom. The onus is, therefore, on the defts. to prove that the pltfs. have lost their legal or ecclesiastical right under a valid custom, i.e., a custom which owes its origin to common consent & voluntary forbearance on the part of the Muhammadans of the village & was never disputed at law. It may be observed that among the Hindus a cow is regarded as the most sacred animal & an object cf worship. It may be observed that among the Hindus a cow is regarded as the most sacred animal & an object cf worship. It is quite likely that the Hindus & the Muhammadans of the village, who are close neighbours & whose houses are intermingled, entered into an agreement not to have sacrifice of cows in the village on festive or other occasions. Such agreement, though at first a matter of opinion, has now, as found by the learned subordinate Judge, become a valid custom & can no longer be treated as a matter of choice, & the custom has acquired an obligatory element or a binding force (Prodoyote Kumar V/s. Rakhal Chandra, (14 OWN 487). But it is not necessary to speculate, because the learned subordinate Judge has found that the defts. have proved the custom as alleged by them, & this finding is a finding of fact with which we cannot interfere in second appeal. Mahadeo Prasad V/s. Nabi Bukhsh, 25 IC 104 at p. 107). 9. The learned Subordinate Judge has, as already stated, found that the local custom alleged by the Hindus is "ancient, uniform, undoubted & continuous". Therefore, the next question that arises for consideration is whether a custom like this can be said to be unreasonable. In fact, reasonableness or unreasonableness of a custom depends on various factors. What may be consd as unreasonable in one set of circumstances may be consd. quite reasonable in a different set of circumstances. In the present case the Hindu & Muhammadan inhabitants are close neighbours, their houses are intermingled, & if out of deference to the riligious susceptibilities of the Hindus & in order to respect their feelings the Muhammadans knowingly & willingly desisted from exercising their right to slaughter kine for which occasion arose every year, it was only to maintain good social relations & neighbourly feelings between the two communities & a custom thus arising cannot be said to be unreasonable. For, as observed by Mahmood, J. in Queen Empress v. Imam Ali, (10 All 150 F B), "the cow as the furnisher of milk & the mother of the bovine species rose from being an object of utility to the footing of sanctity". The protection of the bovine species so universally employed in this country for purposes of agriculture has also been recognized in the Constitution. The protection of the bovine species so universally employed in this country for purposes of agriculture has also been recognized in the Constitution. Art. 48 of the Constitution, which is only directive, lays down that the "State shall......take steps for preserving...... the breeds, & prohibiting the slaughter, of cows & calves & other milch & draught cattle." This directive cannot be said to be unreasonable; & if this directive is not unreasonable, then, if the same object is fulfilled by mutual good will of the two communities & a custom has sprung up prohibiting slaughter of cows, such a custom, in my opinion, cannot equally be said to be unreasonable" 10. I would accordingly allow the appeal & dismiss the suit with costs throughout: pleaders fee in the lower Cts. at 10 per cent. CHATTERJI, J. 11 I agree.