Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)

Nawabiada Khajeh Atikulla And Ors. vs Nawab Khajeh Habibulla on 22 July, 1919

This very document was under consideration in the case of Habibullah v. Soleman Quader 53 Ind. Cas. 764; 80 C. h. J. 102; 24 C. W. N. 18. and the Court then came to the conclusion that as the gift to Charity was illusory, there Was no valid Wakf. We invited, however, the learned Vakil for the plaintiffs-appellants to address the Court on the Question of the legality of the Wakf irrespective of the decision of this Court in the case last mentioned. Bat he conceded that in view of the long series of decisions of the Judicial Committee, any attempt to support the validity of the Wakf would be futile. He did not also dispute that the Musalman Wakf Validating Act of 1913 was not retrospective in operation and could not validate the Wakf which was invalid in its inception. He argued, however, that as in the Court below the parties had proceeded on the assumed basis that the Wakf was good and valid, this Court was not competent to determine whether this assumption was or was not well founded. He contended in substance that although we must examine the provisions of the instrument in order to determine the rights of the parties, yet we most not form an opinion as to its legality, even though on the very fees of the document it was apparent beyond controversy that the object of the Wakf Was a perpetual family settlement with an ultimate illusory gift to the poor We are clearly of opinion that this contention cannot possibly prevail.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Khajeh Sajidulla And Ors. vs K. Habibullah And Ors. on 28 March, 1938

In our judgment, that contention is no longer open to the appellants in view of the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Soleman Quadir v. Salimulla Bahadur (1922) 9 A.I.R. P.C. 107 and Habibullah Saheb v. Janaki Natha Roy , referred to above, Dhan Bibi's wakf was an invalid one, and it was held that in determining the rights of the parties to the allowances, the agreements of 1881 must be taken to have an independent existence, the judgment of Mookerjee and Walmsley JJ. which had held otherwise in Habibullah Saheb v. Soleman Quader (1920) 7 A.I.R. Cal. 588, having been overruled.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1