Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Faqruddin (D) Th.Lrs vs Tajuddin (D) Th.Lrs on 16 May, 2008

Sri. Syed Aslam Pasha Khadri vs Sri Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri on 16 December, 2024

(g) Referring to Judgment in the case of Faqruddin Vs Tajuddin (Supra) (2008) 8 SCC 12 at paragraph 32 he submitted that the holder of office of Sajjadanashin must have a special qualification which the defendant No.8 himself admitted to be an illiterate. That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the admission made by the defendant No.8 that during the time of death of his grand father he was residing at Shivanasumadra, while his grand father was residing at Channapatna and that defendant No.8 was 45 an illiterate and did not know reading and writing and he did not know conducting of Urs at Channapatna and that he was not even aware of names of fakirs and muridhs etc.
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri vs Syed Yaseen Pasha Khadri Since Dead By ... on 16 December, 2024

(g) Referring to Judgment in the case of Faqruddin Vs Tajuddin (Supra) (2008) 8 SCC 12 at paragraph 32 he submitted that the holder of office of Sajjadanashin must have a special qualification which the defendant No.8 himself admitted to be an illiterate. That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the admission made by the defendant No.8 that during the time of death of his grand father he was residing at Shivanasumadra, while his grand father was residing at Channapatna and that defendant No.8 was 45 an illiterate and did not know reading and writing and he did not know conducting of Urs at Channapatna and that he was not even aware of names of fakirs and muridhs etc.
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Sri. Syed Adil Basha Quadri vs Syed Azadullah on 16 December, 2024

(g) Referring to Judgment in the case of Faqruddin Vs Tajuddin (Supra) (2008) 8 SCC 12 at paragraph 32 he submitted that the holder of office of Sajjadanashin must have a special qualification which the defendant No.8 himself admitted to be an illiterate. That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the admission made by the defendant No.8 that during the time of death of his grand father he was residing at Shivanasumadra, while his grand father was residing at Channapatna and that defendant No.8 was 45 an illiterate and did not know reading and writing and he did not know conducting of Urs at Channapatna and that he was not even aware of names of fakirs and muridhs etc.
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri vs Syed Yaseen Pasha Khadri Since Dead By ... on 16 December, 2024

(g) Referring to Judgment in the case of Faqruddin Vs Tajuddin (Supra) (2008) 8 SCC 12 at paragraph 32 he submitted that the holder of office of Sajjadanashin must have a special qualification which the defendant No.8 himself admitted to be an illiterate. That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the admission made by the defendant No.8 that during the time of death of his grand father he was residing at Shivanasumadra, while his grand father was residing at Channapatna and that defendant No.8 was 45 an illiterate and did not know reading and writing and he did not know conducting of Urs at Channapatna and that he was not even aware of names of fakirs and muridhs etc.
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Nagshetty S/O Bandeppa Jamshette vs Vishnukanth S/O Bandeppa Jamshettee on 12 June, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3820-DB RFA No.200012 of 2015 revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri R A Pradeep vs Sri N Murari on 17 June, 2020

"15. Mr Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, may not be correct in contending that only because the order of mutation made in favour of the appellants had been cancelled, the same ipso facto would lead to the conclusion that they have no title over the property. It is now a well-settled principle of law that entry in a revenue record-of-rights merely is an evidence of possession. (See Faqruddin v. Tajuddin) Such an entry does not create title; absence thereof does not extinguish the same. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the appellants had committed acts of criminal misconduct while trying to obtain orders of mutation but it is another thing to say that only because they filed such an application, the same by itself would tantamount to commission of a criminal offence."
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sridevi vs Rajkumar S/O Shivsharnappa Hegge on 11 July, 2024

Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1