Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.95 seconds)Documents citing
Ahmad Husain vs Kallu Mian Sajhi Firm on 29 January, 1929
Raj Behari Lal And Ors. vs Dr. Mahabir Prasad And Ors. on 11 November, 1955
40. 'All Ahmad v. Said Mian', AIR 1924 Lah 188 (1) (P) is another case where a suit by a minor was filed and was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the plaintiff who was a minor had sued without a next friend. In that case the Court itself noted that the plaintiff appellant appeared to be under age and this was admitted by the plaintiff. Upon this the Court rejected the plaint. In appeal their Lordships held that the order rejecting the plaint was erroneous and remarked that
"a case of this nature is not expressly provided for in the Procedure Code, but there are decided cases which show that in a case of this nature the former practice must be considered to be in force. This practice was to suspend all proceedings and to allow sufficient time to enable the minor to have himself properly represented in the suit by a next friend."
Mohammad Sabir Ali vs Tahir Ali And Ors. on 22 February, 1954
It is for this reason that the corpus of the property in a waqf according to Abu Yasuf, vests in the ownership of God. This view is supported by the opinion of Sir Shah Sulaiman, who sitting with Kendall, J. held that a dedication in favour of God is "a transfer governed by the Transfer of Property Act as God is a juristic person"--Ahmad Husain v. Kallu Mian, AIR 1929 All 277 (K). True it is that a Juristic person is not a living human being and the fact that for some purposes the law invests inanimate objects with the rights of persons would not make juristic persons 'living persons' for 'all' purposes. But if the law makes them capable of holding property, there is no reason why a transfer 'in praesenti' cannot be made in their favour.
Mohammad Abu Zafar Mohammad Ibrahim vs Israr Ahmad And Ors. on 22 February, 1971
In Ahmad Husain v. Kallu Mian Sajhi Firm. (AIR 1929 All 277) it was held that although waqf may be dedication in favour of God, it is still a transfer governed by the Transfer of Property Act as God is a juristic person.
Ram Kumar Ram Chandra And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 October, 1964
9. Learned counsel for the Commissioner upon Ahmad Hnssain v. Kallu Mian Sajhi, AIR 1929 All 277. That was a case, however, where the Court was required to consider the question whether a waqf made under the Mohammadan law was governed by the Transfer of Property Act and it was held that the transfer was governed by that enactment. It is not necessary for us to express ourselves on the correctness of that decision. It is sufficient to point out that the instant case must be governed by the principles obtaining under the Hindu law.
Mt. Bibi Kubra Begum And Anr. vs Jainandan Prasad And Ors. on 14 January, 1955
"It seems to us in the first place that there is no rule of Muhammadan law which allows an indebted person to make a waqf of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. In the second place, under the Muhammadan law the Qazi had the power to make the debtor pay all his debts before he maintained the waqf. In the third place the rule under which a manager can be appointed by the Judge to realize the rents and profits and to pay the debts is a mere rule of procedure and not of substantive law, and therefore is not as such enforceable. Thus the provisions of Section 53 in no way offend against any rule of Muhammadan law and are not inoperative by virtue of Section 2. This was the view expressed by one of us in -- 'Ahmad Husain v. Kallu Mian', AIR 1929 All 277 (II). With that view we fully agree."
Bismillah Begam And Ors. vs Tahsin Ali Khan on 6 February, 1930
11. It seems to us in the first place that there is no rule of Mahomedan Law which allows an indebted person to make a wakf of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. In the second place under the Mahomedan Law the Kazi had the power to make the debtor pay all his debts before he maintained the wakf. In the third place the rule under which a manager can be appointed by the Judge to realise the rents and profits and to pay the debts is a mere rule of procedure and not of substantive law, and therefore is not as such enforceable. Thus the provisions of Section 53 in no way offend against any rule of Mahomedan Law and is not inoperative by virtue of Section 2. This was the view expressed by one of us in Ahamad Husain v. Kallu Mian A.I.R. 1929 All. 277. With that view we fully agree. The findings on both the issues returned by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge are against the plaintiff-respondent. They are challenged before us on his behalf.
Har Prasad And Ors. vs Mohammad Usman Husain on 12 August, 1942
8. We need hardly point out that it is one of the principles of Mahomedan law as indeed of the law prevailing in all civilised communities that the first duty of those who are governed by that law is to arrange for the payment of their debts before they make gifts or create wakfs. We may mention that there are instructive judgments in Ahmad Husain v. Kallu Mian ('29) 16 A.I.R. 1929 All.
1