Declaratory suit with consequential injunction, limitation trigger, and Shariat Act override of contrary custom in Muslim personal law.

A suit seeking declaration of right with consequential injunction was treated as maintainable because the injunction was a real consequential relief, not a mere declaratory prayer. Limitation under Article 120 ran only when the right to sue accrued through infringement or a clear, unequivocal threat; mere denial by defendants did not bar the claim where the trustees had not denied the right. The amended Shariat Act was held to require courts to apply Muslim Personal Law notwithstanding contrary custom or usage, and that mandate was sufficient to govern pending proceedings as well as future cases. The custom excluding females from income and officiating rights therefore could not prevail, and the plaintiffs' claim was governed by Muslim Personal Law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit for declaration of right with a consequential injunction was maintainable; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the custom excluding females from the share in income and from officiating rights yielded to the Muslim Personal Law under the Shariat Act as amended.

Issue (i): Whether a suit for declaration of right with a consequential injunction was maintainable.

Analysis: A suit framed as one for declaration accompanied by a prayer for injunction is not a mere declaratory suit. The further relief of injunction is a consequential relief, and the adequacy of such relief depends on the facts of each case. A suit of this character was held maintainable.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim for declaration and injunction was governed by Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act. Time begins to run only when the right to sue accrues, which requires infringement of the asserted right or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe it. Mere denial by the contesting defendants did not start limitation against the plaintiffs where the trustees had not denied the right.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the custom excluding females from the share in income and from officiating rights yielded to the Muslim Personal Law under the Shariat Act as amended.

Analysis: The amended Shariat Act directed the court to apply Muslim Personal Law in all questions within its scope notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary. The language was held to be sufficiently comprehensive to apply to pending proceedings as well as future ones, and the presumption against retrospectivity was treated as displaced by the statutory wording. The custom excluding females therefore could not prevail against the Act.

Conclusion: The custom was inapplicable, and the plaintiffs were entitled to claim according to Muslim Personal Law.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was affirmed and the appeal failed, with the plaintiffs' rights governed by the amended Shariat Act rather than by the alleged custom.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute in mandatory terms directs courts to apply a specified personal law notwithstanding custom, that law governs pending proceedings within its scope, and a declaratory suit with consequential injunction is maintainable if the consequential relief is appropriate and the right to sue has accrued.

---