Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 359 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By L.Rs. ... vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 22 March, 1976

Sageer Ahmed Anr vs Shariq Ansarullah Ors on 25 March, 2026

"It is well known that on special occasions like Fridays, Id, Ide-Milad and other auspicious occasions the entire Muslim community flock to the mosque for the purpose of offering prayers, because offering of prayers on such days is, according to the Islamic tenets, extremely auspicious and highly efficacious. It is also established from the evidence that the constructions referred to above had been made for the purpose of the mosque.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(Pc No.351/06) (Shashi Kr. Jain, Thru ... vs . State & Ors.) on 21 July, 2008

2. Citation was published in newspaper 'National Herald', but no one appeared from general public to file any objection. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No.3, 5 & 6 filed (PC No.351/06) (Shashi Kr. Jain, thru L.Rs vs. State & Ors.) : 3: their no objection. Respondent No.4 was proceeded ex parte. The petition was contested only by respondent no.2 Anil Kumar Jain, who filed objections challenging the Will. He took preliminary objection that the Will is undated and is not bearing the signatures of Shri Madan Lal Jain on each page and is also not in the handwriting of Shri Madan Lal Jain. It has been stated that the properties mentioned in the Will were not self acquired property of late Shri Madan Lal Jain. Most of these properties were acquired out of the funds, income and assets of Hindu undivided family known as Madan Lal Jain (HUF) of which he was the Karta and his four sons i.e. petitioners and respondents no.2 to 4. Respondents No.2 to 4 are the co-parceners. It is, thus, stated that Shri Madan Lal Jain had no right, power or authority to execute the Will in respect of HUF property. It is also stated that even if the Will was executed, the same shall be the result of undue pressure, coercion and influence as Shri Madan Lal Jain was not in sound disposing state of mind and health and, therefore, the Will was not executed out of the free will and sound state of mind. It has further been stated that no reason has been given in the Will for not bequeathing any property to respondent no.2 and his family. It has also been stated that both the witnesses had proximity with the deceased. It has further been stated that the verification of the petition is not in accordance with the law and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On merits of the case, the respondents denied all the averments made in the petition.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Vasu vs Munna @ Selva Kumar on 16 March, 2022

54)In Syed Mohd's case, this court has stated that before a plea of res- judicata can be given effect the four conditions requires to be proved. They are, that the litigating parties must be the same; that the subject matter of the suit also must be identical; that the matter must be finally decided between the parties; and that the suit must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. This court while analyzing those conditions as matter of fact found that the parties had not even filed the pleading of the suits instituted by them. In that factual scenario, this court has to observe that the pleadings cannot be proved merely by recitals of the allegations mentioned in the judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G Chandrasekharan - Full Document

Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017

Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another Vs. Ramji Tripathi, 1974 (2) SCC 695 62, 391 58, 373 185 Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd. Hanifa AIR 1976 SC 1569 466 453 186 T.B. Ramachandra Rao and another Vs. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80 450 447 187 T.K. Gopal alias Gopi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2000 (6) SCC 168 296, 242 188 Talluri Venkata Seshayya and others Vs. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and others, AIR 1937 P.C. page 1 475 455 189 Tarak Chandra Das and another Vs. Anukul Chandra Mukherjee A.I.R. 1946 Cal 118 220 178 190 Thamba Vs. Arundel I.L.R. 6 Mad.
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lakshmi Saroja vs The Salem Muslim Burial Ground on 6 August, 2009

The Wakf Board relied on 1976 (4) SCC 780(Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd. Hanifa) where it was held that once a property becomes a wakf property it would continue to be the same notwithstanding non-user ; and also on Sayyed Ali Vs. A.P. Wakf Board(1998 (2) SCC 642). The Supreme Court distinguished Sayyed Alis case and held that the dispute there was between the wakf on the one hand and its Mutawalli or persons claiming from him, while here the dispute was between the Wakf Board and the Panchayat representing the village community. The Supreme Court held that if no notice was issued, 23. We, therefore, hold that the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a Mohammedan wakf or not.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jupalli Swami Reddy And Anr. vs Jupalli Chandraiah (Died) By Lr on 28 March, 2007

8. Contentions of Sri Nagabhushana Rao : Sri Nagabhushana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent would submit that here is an unfortunate Court auction purchaser who had been fighting this litigation sufficiently for a long time. It is really unfortunate that these defendants 4 and 5 are now contending as though the transaction is a bona fide one and as though Judgment-debtor is not entitled to any share, though by virtue of Court auction he purchased the property. The Counsel would comment that the transaction itself is not a bona fide transaction. Having received the telegram, the purchase was made and that itself would show that the transaction, which had been entered into is a speculative one and definitely not a bona fide one. The learned Counsel would also submit that there is no specific plea to the effect that the admission made in the prior litigation viz., in a money suit was an admission made in terrorem and all other factual foundations are being laid for the first time in the second appeal, which cannot be permitted. These aspects had not been specifically pleaded and in the absence of such factual foundation, the said question cannot be permitted to be raised in a second appeal. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would submit that on facts, it is clear that it is a binding admission and at any rate the decision of the Apex Court referred in Syed Mohammed's case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of this case and the same is distinguishable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bala Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs vs Simroo (Deceased) Through His Lrs ... on 20 October, 2023

13. Not only the plea has to be taken, but it has to be substantiated by producing copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. Maybe, in a given case only a copy of the judgment in the previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be of taken as enough proof. But as pointed out in Syed Mohd. SalieLabbai v. Mohd. Hanifa (1976) 4 SCC 780 the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their rt respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. It is risky to speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next