Judgment :- There is a dilapidated mosque like structure in S.No.187 of Sheik Manyam Vanagaram village, Saidapet, Chinglepet District. This building with the land appurtenant thereto measuring about 17,000 sq.ft. south of cart track, north of poramboke land, east part of S.No.187 and west of tank is the subject matter of the second appeal. The S.No.187 before sub division comprised of an extent of 51 acres 17 cents. Ex.B-3 the from the Registrar of Inams in the Village of Vanakaram discloses that this extent originally granted to one Kayarunnissa as a personal Inam. Subsequently one Mohammed Abdul Khadi Basha Sahib became the owner of this property. Under Ex.B 23.9.1898 he settled this land in favour of his minor son Mohammed Habibulla Basha The donee sold away the property to one Anniah Naidu under Ex.B-5 the registered dated 15.3.1917. Subsequently Anniah Naidu became insolvent and this property was the Official Assignee of the High Court in favour of one Jaganathan under Ex.B-6 the conveyance dated 1.5.1919. Jaganathan also became insolvent and Elumalai Chettiar of the respondent herein purchased this property from Official Assignee under Ex.B deed dated 31.10.1935. After the demise of Elumalai Chettiar there was partition family under Ex.B-8 dated 9.3.1960. There is no dispute that in this partition the respondent was allotted S.No.187/ 1 measuring 24 acres and 63 cents while an extent acres and 17 cents in S.No. 187/3 came to the share of his brother. During the Sub the remaining extent which is a channel was marked as S.No.187/2. 2. The appellants claiming that the decrepit structure is an ancient mosque of more years old wherein the Muslims of that locality were offering worship, that in one part said mosque they bury their dead for the past 200 years and more and that all of the defendant-respondent has prevented them from saying their prayers in that instituted O.S.No.674 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif of Poona-mallee on themselves and Muslim worshippers for an injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from preventing their offering worship. 3. The respondent/defendant resisted the action contending that the appellants who the residents of Vanagaram Village have no locus standi to maintain the suit. No Muslim offered worship in the disputed building. 3. The respondent/defendant resisted the action contending that the appellants who the residents of Vanagaram Village have no locus standi to maintain the suit. No Muslim offered worship in the disputed building. There is no mosque as such in any part of Though there is a dilapidated structure therein, only after obtaining an ex parte interim injunction, for the first time plaintiff ’ s and their men made a pretention of worship in that place. The graves adjoining the building are not those of Muslims. The respondent and his predecessors in title are in continuous and exclusive possession of the entire property and they have perfected title by adverse possession. settlement proceedings under Ex.B-9 a Ryotwari Patta has been issued to the respondent his brother on 123.1970 for the entire land. The respondent alone has been using disputed building for stocking agricultural implements and paddy. The private property of respondent cannot be converted into a mosque merely because it may have the appearance of a mosque. 4. The trial court found that the structure in dispute was not used by the Muslims as a of worship before the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs were not in possession of property before the suit came to be filed. The adjoining site is not a public graveyard of Muslims. Accordingly it dismissed the suit with cost. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs A.S.No.51 of 1982 before the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput also met with the same Having lost in both the courts below the plaintiffs have come forward . with this second appeal. 5. The only substantial question of law that arises for determination now is: “ Whether the disputed structure in S.No.187 is a public mosque and if so whether appellants-plaintiffs and other Muslims are to be protected from interference by defendant in offering worship therein? ” 6. Ex.C-1 the Commissioner ’ s report and Ex.C-2 the Commissioner ’ s plan disclose that disputed structure is at a distance of 5 to 6 furlongs away from Arcot Road, Kodambakkam. The building part of it is marked as A, B, C, D and measures 30 feet North-South and 6 inches East West. The construction is of bricks and the structure is dilapidated and properly maintained. The building facing east comprises of three arches. There is a arch in the western wall with some projection. The building part of it is marked as A, B, C, D and measures 30 feet North-South and 6 inches East West. The construction is of bricks and the structure is dilapidated and properly maintained. The building facing east comprises of three arches. There is a arch in the western wall with some projection. On all sides of the building there is a wire fencing marked as E, F, G, H. While a channel runs on the south of the property, northern side there is a can track of 10 feet width. There are some old tombs in front building and on the south eastern corner. There is also a well on the eastern side building. The cultivable land on the western side is at a distance of 54 feet from the fencing. The place occupied by the building and the surrounding area are all in a raised than the cultivable land. The disputed place appears to be separate and distinct suitable some particular purpose. From those physical features and the photographs Exs. A the possibility of the building having been erected initially to serve as a mosque could ruled out. 7. Ex.A-1 is the village plans prepared in the year 1938 which indicates that there mosque originally in S.No.187. Ex.A-12 plan has come into existence subsequent dispute. In fact even the lower appellate court has also concluded that there was a in the suit property long time back. However it has negatived the appellants claim injunction on the ground that they have failed to establish that it was a public mosque. non-mention of the disputed mosque as a wakf property in Ex.B-1 the gazette publication dated 17.12.1958 containing the list of wakfs existing at that time in Chingleput District, absence of reference to any mosque in Ex.B-2 the Settlement Register Extract, Ex.B Register Extract, Ex.B-4 Inam Title Deed weighed with the lower appellate Court in at the decision that it was not a public mosque. Besides the lower appellate court relied the fact that during settlement proceedings which culminated in the issuance of Patta Ex.B-9 neither the appellants nor anybody representing the Muslim community applied Patta. The absence of evidence regarding the dedication of the building for the purpose mosque by the original founder was also taken into consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge. Besides the lower appellate court relied the fact that during settlement proceedings which culminated in the issuance of Patta Ex.B-9 neither the appellants nor anybody representing the Muslim community applied Patta. The absence of evidence regarding the dedication of the building for the purpose mosque by the original founder was also taken into consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge. Further the lower appellate Court has pointed out that the evidence of P.Ws.1 not establish that the suit property was ever used as a public mosque and the Muslims surrounding village buried their dead there. There is also no evidence that either appellants or any other Muslims of the locality said their prayers in the disputed building, prior to the institution of the suit. The lower appellate Court also held that as the appellants are not living in the suit village they have no locus standi to maintain this action. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the existence of a mosque graveyard at some point of time in the past in the disputed property is not in dispute. appellants herein now claim right only to offer worship in the mosque, and bury their They do not claim any title to the land in dispute. Simply because they have ceased to offer prayer, the property does not lose its character as a mosque. Once a mosque it is always a mosque. Further according Muslim Law there is no such thing as a private mosque. Once a mosque is constructed dedicated to the public it becomes the property of God. 9. On the other hand, it is the argument of the respondent that there is no evidence Muslims of that village used to say their prayers in that disputed property when came to be filed. There is no material on the side of the appellants to establish that time immemorial this property was used as a mosque. Mere existence of a dilapidated structure which might have been used as a mosque earlier will not give the appellants right of worship therein if that mosque was not in existence on the date of suit. place has ceased to be a mosque and nobody was offering prayers at the time of the suit, the appellants cannot be given any right to go there and offer their prayers. 10. However we find that the law on the subject is different. place has ceased to be a mosque and nobody was offering prayers at the time of the suit, the appellants cannot be given any right to go there and offer their prayers. 10. However we find that the law on the subject is different. Athar Husain and Khalid in their “Wakf Laws and Administration in India” 1973 Edition state at page 111 that can set apart an apartment for his own prayers but if he allows others to say their prayers it, it assumes a public character. The test whether a building is a mosque lies in the once it was set apart as a mosque, It is enough to make it “wakf, provided public are even once said with the permission of the settlor. Tyabji in his ‘ Muslim Law Edition, 1968 mentions at page 610 that when a person purports to build a masjid house, or boundaries, and permits the public to enter there and say their prayers, becomes a masjid according to the opinion of all, provided that he gives the public a way. ‘Mulla also mentions in his” Principles of ‘Mohammedan Law, 1990, Nineteenth at page 155, that if land has been used from time immemorial for a religious purpose example a mosque or a burial ground then the land is by user wakf although there evidence of an express dedication. If a building has been set apart as a mosque it is to make it wakf if public prayers are said there with the permission of the owner. mosque and a saint’s tomb become wakf by user. If a mosque has stood for a long worship has been performed in it, the Court will infer that it does not stand by leave licence of the owner of the site but that the land is dedicated property and no longer to the original owner. Once the mosque was constructed, it stood dedicated to God the right, title and interest of the owner got completely extinguished. Once there complete dedication of the mosque, as a place of public worship, any reservation or imposed by the owner would be deemed to be void and would have to be ignored. Miru v. Ram Gopal, 1935 All. Once the mosque was constructed, it stood dedicated to God the right, title and interest of the owner got completely extinguished. Once there complete dedication of the mosque, as a place of public worship, any reservation or imposed by the owner would be deemed to be void and would have to be ignored. Miru v. Ram Gopal, 1935 All. L.J. 1269, it has been held that where the court finds mosque has stood on a piece of land for a long time and worship has been performed the public, though the structure is katcha, it is open to the court to infer that the become a consecrated and dedicated property. 11. In Mohammed Shah v. Fasihuddin Ansari, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 713, it has been laid that a wakf normally requires express dedication but if land ’ has been used from immemorial for a religious purpose then the land is by user wakf although there evidence of an express dedication. 12. The decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Chandra hammad, I.L.R. 35 All 197, is to the effect that every Mohammedan who has a right mosque for purposes of devotion is entitled to exercise such right without hindrance competent to maintain a suit against anyone who interferes with its exercise. 13. In Maher Husein v. Alimahomed, A.I.R. 1934 Bom. 257, it was held that to create there must be a declaration of dedication which should be made contemporaneously act of dedication. The Wakf must divest himself of the ownership of the property. But rules apply where mosques are dedicated as wakf. Where a building has been set apart mosque it is enough to make it wakf if public prayers are once said there with the permission of the owner. Though a declaration of dedication and completion by some act giving practical effect to it are essential, it is always not necessary that there should be any direct evidence of these things. Dedication may be inferred from long user that property was wakf property. Though a declaration of dedication and completion by some act giving practical effect to it are essential, it is always not necessary that there should be any direct evidence of these things. Dedication may be inferred from long user that property was wakf property. Where for a considerable number of years the public have been offering prayers in a mosque close by a tomb of a Mohammedan saint, andan annual uras attended by persons belonging to momin sect of Mohammedans has been regularly held it must be presumed that mosque and the tomb have been duty dedicated and have become wakf by user and that presumption might fairly be extended to other buildings and land enclosed within compound wall which might be regarded as appurtenant to the tomb. 14. In Jawhra v. Akbar Huston, I.L.R. 7 All 178 (F.B.), an old dilapidated mosque intended for Mohammedan worship was protected and looked after by the plaintiff and Mohammedans of the village. The defendants had enclosed a part of the land and converted the mosque into a place for storing straw. The plaintiff had protested with the defendants and asked them to remove the things. When they failed to do so plaintiff instituted the for declaration of his right to repair the old dilapidated mosque and sought injunction for removal of the defendants interference. The defendants pleaded that the building which the subject matter of the suit was not a mosque, but an “atta or fortress made for purpose of shelter from robbers in former days ” . No doubt the question referred to the Bench consisting of Five Judges of Allahabad High Court was regarding the locus possessed by Mohammedans to institute the suit in view of the provisions of Secs.30 and of the C.P.C. of 1863. However the observations of the Full Bench made in the course Judgment are important for our present purpose. The Full Bench has stated that according Mohammedan custom, the property in a mosque and in the land connected with it is in no one. It is not the subject of human ownership, but all the members of Mohammedan community are entitled to use it for purposes of devotion whenever mosque is open. Everyone who has such a right is entitled to exercise it without hindrance, and has a right of action against anyone who interferes with its exercise. It is not the subject of human ownership, but all the members of Mohammedan community are entitled to use it for purposes of devotion whenever mosque is open. Everyone who has such a right is entitled to exercise it without hindrance, and has a right of action against anyone who interferes with its exercise. The rule of Mohammedan Law on the subject is that when anyone has resolved to devote his property religions purposes, as soon as his mind is made up and his intention declared by specific act, such as delivery an endowment is immediately constituted. His act deprives of all ownership in the property and to use the technical language of Mohammedan lawyers, vests it in God in such a manner as subjects it to the rules of divine property whence appropriator ’ s right in it is extinguished, and it becomes a property of God by the advantage of it resulting to His creatures. A mosque is an endowment of this kind, and Mohammedan community, or any member of it has a right to enter the mosque and to there. 15. In Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd Hanifs, (1976)3 S.C.R. 721 , the land in dispute originally acquired by a Muslim saint about two hundred years ago. Some years later predecessors of the respondents built a masque therein with the permission of the ancestor of the appellants and the then owner of the land. The adjacent vacant land was used graveyard for the Muslims of the village. There was a scheme suit in respect of this property wherein it was contended that there was no public wakf of the mosque which was only private or family mosque, that there was no decla- ‘ ration of dedication for the purpose mosque and that the prayers offered in the mosque by the respondents were only by and licence of the founder. The graveyard was also not a public wakf but graveyard of the appellants wherein corpses of other Muslims were allowed to be payment of pit fees. Held that in the case of a mosque, the founder ’ s permission or act of allowing the members of the Mohammedan public to offer prayers amounts complete delivery of possession. The graveyard was also not a public wakf but graveyard of the appellants wherein corpses of other Muslims were allowed to be payment of pit fees. Held that in the case of a mosque, the founder ’ s permission or act of allowing the members of the Mohammedan public to offer prayers amounts complete delivery of possession. The owner of the land has given his tacit consent allowed the mosque to be constructed not for the private members of his family worship of God by the entire Mohammedan public. By providing a separate entrance, owner agreed to separate the mosque from the rest of the property by allowing Mohammedan Community of the village to worship in the mosque and to perform ceremonies. The owner of the land gave delivery of possession to the mosque. A be dedicated as a mosque or masjid without there being any building. But since the in the nature of a mosque was built a clear case of dedication has been made out. mosque was constructed it stood dedicated to God and all the right, title and interest owner got completely extinguished. Once there was a complete dedication to the a place of public worship any reservation imposed by the owner would be deemed void. Under the Muslim law once the dedication was complete, the property passed owner to God and it never returns to the owner and therefore the question of the mosque being private can never arise. The very concept of a private mosque is wholly foreign to the dedication of a mosque for a public purpose under Muslim law. Under system, of law once the founder dedicates a particular property for the purpose of a public mosque, no Muslim, can be denied the right to offer prayers in the mosque. The law strict that the moment even a single person is allowed to offer his prayers in a mosque becomes dedicated to the public. Also, any adjuncts to a mosque, which are also used religious purposes, become as much a part of the mosque as the mosque itself. argument that there was no formal dedication is unsound. The act of permitting Mohammedans of the village to build a mosque itself amounts to a complete dedication declaration that the mosque is a public property. 16. Also, any adjuncts to a mosque, which are also used religious purposes, become as much a part of the mosque as the mosque itself. argument that there was no formal dedication is unsound. The act of permitting Mohammedans of the village to build a mosque itself amounts to a complete dedication declaration that the mosque is a public property. 16. So it is a fundamental principle of the Mohammedan Law of Wakf that when a mosque built and consecrated by public worship, it ceases to be the property of the builder and in God. A mosque once so consecrated cannot in any case revert to the founder and Mohammedan has the legal right to enter it, and perform devotions according to his tenets so long as the form of worship is in accord with the recognised rules of Mohammedan Ecclesiastical Law. A mosque from its very nature is dedicated for worship and is open Muslims local and others. Once the mosque was constructed it stood dedicated to God the owner is divested of his right title and interest in the property. The very concept private mosque is unknown to Muslim Law. Once the founder dedicates a particular property for the purpose of a public mosque, no Muslim can be denied the right to offer prayers therein on the ground that the mosque fell into disuse long back. And from the mere that in Ex.A-1 the village plan a mosque is shown to have existed in the year 1938, disputed piece of land has become a wakf by | user although there is no evidence of express dedication and any attempt on the part of the respondents to prevent the appellants from coming over to the property and saying their prayers cannot be permitted. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts are set aside and the decree for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering the appellants right of worship in the mosque described in the plaint schedule is granted prayed for. And in the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own throughout.