1. The Lower Courts seem to have rightly held that a suit for possession of the mosque properties could not be maintained by the worshippers in their individual or collective capacity as that principle of law seems to be derivable from the observations in Srinivasa Aiyangar v. Srinivasa Swami (1892) I.L.R. 16 M. 31 Kamaraju v. Asanali Sheriff (1899) I.L.R. 23 M. 99 and Dasandhay v. Muhamad Abu Nasar (1911) I.L.R. 33 A. 660.
2. The plaintiffs have not established that by Muhammadan Law the worshippers as a body can be collective muttawallees of the plaint Mosque and we are further unable to hold that the suit is brought by the plaintiffs in this case as trustees and not as merely belonging to and representing the community of worshippers. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.