Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Shahi Jama Masjid, Merta vs Kanhaiya Lal Bhagat And Ors. on 11 May, 1973

Anbu vs Chinnakarasamangalam Sunnath Val ...

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a decision in Shahi Jama Masjid, Merta vs. Kanhaiya Lal Bhagat and others, AIR 1973 Rajasthan 322 (V60 C86). It is pertinent to note here that the ratio laid down in this decision has already been quoted in the opening paragraphs of this Judgment, which has also been cited by the Trial Court. It is significant to note here that the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in Paragraph No.21 has specifically made a keynote saying that in the absence of the Government or the Municipal Board the decree may not be binding on them, but the defendants in the case cannot be heard to say that the suit cannot proceed without the Government or the Municipal Board being made a party to the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

Maulvi Reza Ansari And Ors. vs Shyamlal Sah And Ors. on 19 April, 1983

10. Mr. Asghar Husain relied upon a single Judge decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Shahi Jama Masjid Merta v. Kanhaiya Lal Bhagat (AIR 1973 Raj 322) in support of his submission that mutawalli can bring a suit even after coming into operation of the Wakf Act, 1954. That was a suit by the Managing Committee of a mosque seeking a relief of injunction against certain alleged trespassers on the open piece of land when according to the plaintiff belonged to the mosque.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mohammed Jahan Begum vs Abdul Hakim on 17 May, 1991

(29) In the case before the Rajasthan High Court, , Shahi Jama Masjid, Nerta v. Kanhaiya Lal Bhagat and others, the suit was by members of the managing committee of a mosque for seeking relief of injunction against certain alleged trespassers upon apiece of land,which according to the plaintiffs. belonged to the mosque The only question which was before the Court was as to whether they could do so without complying with the provisions of Section 55 of the Act of 1954 It was held that since the plaintiffs were seeking to protect the mosque property, in which they were interested, the suit was not such a suit, as is covered by Section 92 of she Code of Civil Procedure so as to attract the provisions of Section 55 of the Wakf Act 1954. Here also the question as to whether a mutawalli on his own could Institute suit for recovery of wakf property was not in issue and not adverted by the Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1