1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.431 OF 2006 Bashuddin Abalal Mulani .... Appellant Vs. Smt.Amirbi Saifuddin Mulani & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Y.M. Inamdar i/by Mr.P.M. Pradhan, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st July, 2009 P.C. 1. The appellants in the Second Appeal are the original defendants. They sought to challenge the decree dated 22nd July 1993 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.269 of 1986 and the decision in the appeal arising therefrom dated 12th January 2006 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1993. The respondents filed the suit herein claiming that they being Mulani have been carrying out various rituals in the Darga like installation of panjas, performing prayers, cutting of goats etc. described at paragraph 2 of the plaint. It is alleged that the appellants started obstructing them from carrying out religious rituals and hence sought permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from doing so. The appellants in the written statement claim that they have exclusively been performing these rituals in the mosque and darga. The appellants also filed an independent suit to establish their right and seek a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from obstructing offering of prayers and celebration of 2 Moharam festival from the premises. That suit has been partly decreed and the appeal therefrom dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the relief granted by the trial Court exceeds the prayer in the plaint. He submits that the prayer is limited to the rituals in the Moharam festival whereas the Court has granted the reliefs in respect of other rituals to be performed through out the year. The prayer refers to various religious rituals in addition to some rituals specifically performed during the month of Moharam. The other religious rituals have been described at paragraph 2 of the plaint. The trial Court as well as the appellate court have arrived at the concurrent finding that the respondents have been carrying out these rituals in the mosque and darga, based on the oral evidence led before the trial Court. There is nothing before the Court to show that these concurrent findings of fact are either perverse or not supported by any material on record. Therefore the same cannot be disturbed. There is also no question of law arising for consideration of the court. Hence, the Second Appeal No.431 of 2006 is dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J)