JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - These two second appeals have been filed by the Defendants and are against the judgment dated 29-4-50 of Sri G.R. Rao, Addl. Subordinate Judge of Balasore, modifying the decree passed by Sri C.R.S. Rao, Munsif of Bhadrak. Both these second appeals will be governed by this judgment of ours. 2. The suit was brought under Order I, Rule 8 of the CPC by six Plaintiffs representing all he Hindu inhabitants of village Bahudarada situate within the Police Station of Bhadrak against five Muhammedans of the village praying for the reliefs that be it declared that the Hindus of the village have a permanent and indefeasible right of performance of religious services and Pujas without being offended by cow-slaughter or Korbani, and further for a declaration of their customary right as to the non-existence of cow-slaughter or Korbani by cow-killing in village Bahudarada. The Plaintiffs also prayed for a permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from killing cows and making Korbani in the village. The Plaintiffs stated in their plaint that the village Bahudarada is by origin a Hindu village where all the inhabitants are Hindus but the Mussalmans came to settle in this village in the course of their conquest. At present there are 300 families of Hindus and 20 families of Muhammedans. Out of 3000 inhabitants of the village only 200 are Muhammedans, The Plaintiffs further state that since time immemorial there was never any cow-slaughter in the village and the Muhammedans have never performed any Korbani by cow-slaughter but they used to slaughter cows .at Dhamnagar from where beef used to be brought to the village for the purpose of consumption. For the first time on 5th July 1944 a cow was slaughtered in the village openly in a field which led to various criminal proceedings u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure and u/s 275 and 298 I.P.C. The proceedings terminated, the parties having come to the agreed term that the Muslims of the village would not break the ancient long established custom of the village. Subsequently again on 27-11-44 the Muhammedans of the village killed a cow in an open place. This has led to the filing of the present suit. 3. The Defendants deny any such negative customary right asserted by the Plaintiffs. They further allege that in fact they have been killing caws in the village all along. Subsequently again on 27-11-44 the Muhammedans of the village killed a cow in an open place. This has led to the filing of the present suit. 3. The Defendants deny any such negative customary right asserted by the Plaintiffs. They further allege that in fact they have been killing caws in the village all along. They particularly rely on their right to kill cows, both in their individual rights and as members of the Islamic faith. 4. The learned trial Court on an analysis of the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, and particularly relying upon Exts. 1 and 2, came to the finding that the Hindus from time immemorial had the negative custom of non-killing of the cows in the village. He further found that in fact as alleged by the Plaintiffs for the first time on 5-7 -44 cow was slaughtered in the village in the open field, Ext. 1 is the petition filed by some of the Defendants before the Inspector of Police on 8-7-44 on which a Misc. Case was started. Ext. 2 is the compromise between the parties terminating the said Misc. Case. But inspite of this finding, the trial Court recognised the position that the Mussalmans are entitled to kill the cows in their individual rights and as members of the Islamic faith and therefore granted a partial decree in favour of the Plaintiffs declaring their right to perform religious services and pur as without being offended by news of cow-slaughters by Muhammedans and further that the Muhammedans may slaughter cows on plot No. 2888 within an enclosure around the plot. Against this partial decree in favour of the Plaintiffs, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants appealed to the District Judge. The lower appellate Court, however, has passed a full decree in favour of the Plaintiffs allowing their claims in their entirety. So the present two second appeals have been filed by the Defendants. 5. Undoubtedly the Hindus of the village have got their indefeasible right to perform their religious services and Pujas without being molested in the least by any demonstration by the Muhammedans, and, as such, they are entitled to a declaration of this right. But nevertheless the Muhammedans of the village have also their right to kill cows for personal consumption or for purposes of sacrifice. But nevertheless the Muhammedans of the village have also their right to kill cows for personal consumption or for purposes of sacrifice. Every Muhammedan enjoys this right independent of any custom whatsoever in his individual capacity as also as a member of the Islamic faith. The Plaintiffs claim a further right which they alleged to have been matured by custom from time immemorial this is a negative customary right of non-existance of cow-slaughter in the village by the Muhammedan community. Such a negative customary right does not seem to have been recognised anywhere. On the contrary, we are definitely of the view that the mere fact that the Muhammedan residents of the village did not exercise their right of killing cows for a long time does not extinguish such a right of the Muhammedan residents. But while clearly acknowledging the position that each Muhammedan has the indefeasible right to kill cow for his personal consumption and for religious sacrifice it is not an unconditional right but is subject to several limitations and restrictions, one of the restrictions being based upon the recognised common law principle that every man is entitled to enjoy his own property provided that in doing so he does not infringe the legal rights of his neighbours that this to say, the Muhammedans cannot exercise this right of theirs in a way as to infringe in any reasonable manner the right of the brother community to offer their Pujas and worships. A further restriction can be mentioned by way of illustration that the Muhammedans cannot certainly make abuse of this right in such a manner which may amount to a public nuisance. It for instance a Mohammedan wilfully slaughters cattle in a public street so that the groans and blood of the poor beast were heard and seen by the passers-by he would certainly be committing an act which is a nuisance to the members of all communities, the Hindus, Muhammedans, Christians and Buddhists, unless the man was completely devoid of all human feelings. Again we may observe that the Muhammedans cannot exercise their rights in such a manner as to lead to breach of the public peace in which event the State is bound to intervene and restrict the exercise of such right. We may in this connexion profitably quote the valuable observations in a judgment of Sulaiman and Sen JJ. Again we may observe that the Muhammedans cannot exercise their rights in such a manner as to lead to breach of the public peace in which event the State is bound to intervene and restrict the exercise of such right. We may in this connexion profitably quote the valuable observations in a judgment of Sulaiman and Sen JJ. of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Naubahar Singh and Others Vs. Qadir Bux and Others . It is to be pertinently remarked here that the facts of the case before their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court was exactly similar to those of the present case excepting that the Plaintiffs in that case were Muhammedans who prayed for declaration of their right to slaughter cows for personal consumption and for performance of sacrifices. There also the trial court found, as in the present case, that it was satisfactorily proved from the evidence on record that "animals including cows were never slaughtered in Rawana (village) as a custom either for food or for sacrifice, and that there was rather a negative custom of abstention", Quite a number of authorities were cited before their Lordships on a consideration of which their Lordships made the following pertinent observations The right which is sought to be declared by means of this suit has been the subject of judicia decisions in this Court and in the High Court of Calcutta, It may be taken to be settled Law that (1) It is the legal right of every Mohammedan to slaughter cows as an article of food or for purposes of sacrifice. (2) This right belongs to every Mahomedan in his individual Islamic faith. (3) This right is independent of custom (4) This right is not lost by mere abstention or non-exercise for a number of years. (5) The exercise of the right is subject to certain limitations. These limitations are the result of either a compulsory regard for the feelings of other people or upon the ground of a public nuisance or a breach of the peace. The exercise of the right is to be regulated by the common law principal embodied in the maxim, sic uteri tuo ut alienum non laedas (every man is entitled to enjoy his own property according to his likes, provided that in doing so, he does not infringe the legal rights of his neighbour. The exercise of the right is to be regulated by the common law principal embodied in the maxim, sic uteri tuo ut alienum non laedas (every man is entitled to enjoy his own property according to his likes, provided that in doing so, he does not infringe the legal rights of his neighbour. If, in exercising his own rights, he want only disregards the legal right of his neighbour, this gives the latter a cause of action. Similarly, if in the exercise of his rights, he actuated by or creates, animosities, his act may amount to an invasion of the public law and the State may intervene, Circumstances are conceivable where the slaughter of cows may amount to a public nuisance. Where, however, the sacrifices are made within walled enclosures, so that no one could see the process from outside, or where the sacrifices are made with quiet and decency unattended with noisy or riotous demonstration, there can be no grounds for objection.... 6. We would also refer to a decision of Stanley C.J. and Burkitt J. of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shabaz Khan v. Umrao Puri ILR All. 181. After considering a number of decisions, their Lordships laid down the principle Under certain limitation the slaughtering of kine by Muhammedans is not illegal. It is the legal right of every person to make such use of his own property as he may think fit, provided that in so doing he does not cause real injury to the others or offend against the law, even though he may thereby hurt the susceptibilities of others. The right of Muhammedans to slaughter kine is one to which they legally entitled irrespective of custom, and it is only when they abuse the right that its exercise can be interfered with. 7. Having in view the principle discussed above, we are definitely of opinion that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the further declaration that they have a permanent indefeasible right that there should be no cow-slaughter or Korbani in the village of Bahudarada. We are also strongly of the view that the Muhammedans do not possess an unconditional right to kill cows either for food or for purposes of sacrifices. We are, therefore, laying down the conditions and restrictions in the exercise of this right of the Defendants. We are also strongly of the view that the Muhammedans do not possess an unconditional right to kill cows either for food or for purposes of sacrifices. We are, therefore, laying down the conditions and restrictions in the exercise of this right of the Defendants. Indeed these restrictions and limitations do not follow on account of the custom prove by the Plaintiffs as wrongly held by the Trial Court but on account of the laws of the land discussed above. We would therefore partially allow the appeals and modify the decree passed by the lower appellate Court and pass the following decree in the present case 1. The Plaintiffs shall have a declaration that they have the right to perform their religious services and Pujas without being molested by any demonstration by the Muhammedans. 2. The Defendants' right to kill cows on Plot No. 2888 is recognised and they are permitted to do so provided that such acts do not amount to a nuisance to their Hindu neighbours. 3. The Defendants are directed to put up an enclosure on Plot No. 2888 with a view to prevent the slaughter being seen by passer-by. The killing should be done during the quiet hours of the day so that the groans of the slaughtered animals may not offend the susceptibilities of the Hindu residents of the locality. The parties are to bear their own costs throughout. Panigrahi, C.J. 8. I agree.