Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)
Khalil Ahamad Khan vs Malka Mehar Nigar Begum And Ors. on 27 October, 1953 cites

Abdul Majid Haji Mahomed vs P.R. Nayak on 11 April, 1951

Section 46 does not affect the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and Nayak's case relied upon by the learned counsel refers to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 223. Powers of the High Court in hearing an appeal from the decision of a lower court are the same as of the lower courts and if a law bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts from entertaining any suit, the High Court's power to decide the appeal is also affected.
Bombay High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 44 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Musammat Allah Rakhi vs Shah Mohammad Abdur Rahim on 18 December, 1933

124. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act is a special Act and evacuee property has a special meaning. "Evacuee Property" as defined in Section 2(f) means any property in which an evacuee has any right or interest (whether personally or as a trustee or as a beneficiary or in any other capacity). The words "or in any capacity" include the capacity of a mutwalli. It is true that a mutwalli is merely a manager of the waqf property and has no vested rights in the property itself. -- 'Vidya Varuthi Thirthaswamlgal v. Baluswami Ayyar', AIR 1922 PC 123 (Y); -- 'Mt. Allah Rakhi v. Shah Mohammad Abdur Rahim', AIR 1934 PC 77 (Z). But as he has a right of management of the property, it cannot be said that he has no 'interest' in the property. This position has been made perfectly clear by the provisions of S. 11 of the Act which deal with public waqfs and waqfs-alal-aulad. The explanation to Section 11 shows that in a public waqf the expression 'trustee' includes a mutwalli of such waqf and so also in respect of a waqf-alal-aulad it is clearly provided that the waqf property becomes evacuee property where the mutwalli thereof is an evacuee, it follows, therefore, that if Malka Mehar Nigar Begum, is the Mutwalli of the waqf property in dispute, the waqf property is evacuee property and vests in the Custodian under Section 11 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Abdul Rajak vs Bai Jimbabai on 13 November, 1911

Under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 6 of 1913, Waqf means the permanent dedication by a person professing the Mussalman faith of any property for any purpose recognised by the Mussalman law as religious, pious or charitable. A waqf 'inter vivos' is completed, according to Abu Yusuf, by a mere declaration of endowment by the owner. According to Muhammad, a waqf is not, complete unless, besides a declaration of waqf, a mutwalli is appointed by the owner and possession of the endowed property is delivered to him. Abu Yusuf's view was followed by all the High Courts in India, -- 'Doe Dem Jaun Beebee v. Abdoliah Barbar', (1833) Fulton 345 (Z2); --'Ma E Khin v. Maung Sein', AIR 1925 Rang 71 (Z3); -- 'Muhammad Ibrahim v. Bibi Mariam', AIR 1929 Pat 410 (Z4); -- 'Muhammad Said v. Mt. Sakina Begam,' AIR 1935 Lah 626 (25); --'Zaffar Hussain v. Mahomed Ghiasuddin', AIR, 1937 Lah 552 (Z6); -- 'Pathu Kutti Umma v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.', AIR 1937 Mad 731 (Z7); -- 'Abdul Rajak v. Jimbabai', 14 Bom LR 295 at pp. 300-301 (Z8); -- 'Husseinbhai v. Advocate-General of Bombay', AIR 1920 Bom 152 (Z9); --'AIR 1936 Oudh 213 (FB) (A); -- 'Zainab Bi v. Jamalkhan', AIR 1951 Nag 428 (Z10), except the Allahabad High Court, -- 'Muhammad Aziz-Ud-din v. Legal Remembrancer to Governmet', 15 All 321 (Z11); -- 'Muhammad Yunus v. Muhamad Ishaq', AIR 1921 All 103 (212); -- 'Muhammad Shan v. Muhammad Abdul', AIR 1937 All 255 (Z13), but a recent Pull Bench decision of that. Court, overruling the previous decisions, has adopted Abu Yusuf's view -- 'AIR 1947 All 201 (J).
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Haji Mohammad Obed Ullah Khan vs Kunwar Mohammad Abdul Jalil Khan And ... on 24 October, 1944

Under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 6 of 1913, Waqf means the permanent dedication by a person professing the Mussalman faith of any property for any purpose recognised by the Mussalman law as religious, pious or charitable. A waqf 'inter vivos' is completed, according to Abu Yusuf, by a mere declaration of endowment by the owner. According to Muhammad, a waqf is not, complete unless, besides a declaration of waqf, a mutwalli is appointed by the owner and possession of the endowed property is delivered to him. Abu Yusuf's view was followed by all the High Courts in India, -- 'Doe Dem Jaun Beebee v. Abdoliah Barbar', (1833) Fulton 345 (Z2); --'Ma E Khin v. Maung Sein', AIR 1925 Rang 71 (Z3); -- 'Muhammad Ibrahim v. Bibi Mariam', AIR 1929 Pat 410 (Z4); -- 'Muhammad Said v. Mt. Sakina Begam,' AIR 1935 Lah 626 (25); --'Zaffar Hussain v. Mahomed Ghiasuddin', AIR, 1937 Lah 552 (Z6); -- 'Pathu Kutti Umma v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.', AIR 1937 Mad 731 (Z7); -- 'Abdul Rajak v. Jimbabai', 14 Bom LR 295 at pp. 300-301 (Z8); -- 'Husseinbhai v. Advocate-General of Bombay', AIR 1920 Bom 152 (Z9); --'AIR 1936 Oudh 213 (FB) (A); -- 'Zainab Bi v. Jamalkhan', AIR 1951 Nag 428 (Z10), except the Allahabad High Court, -- 'Muhammad Aziz-Ud-din v. Legal Remembrancer to Governmet', 15 All 321 (Z11); -- 'Muhammad Yunus v. Muhamad Ishaq', AIR 1921 All 103 (212); -- 'Muhammad Shan v. Muhammad Abdul', AIR 1937 All 255 (Z13), but a recent Pull Bench decision of that. Court, overruling the previous decisions, has adopted Abu Yusuf's view -- 'AIR 1947 All 201 (J).
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ghazanfar Husain vs Mt. Ahmadi Bibi And Ors. on 11 November, 1929

This controversy is, however, immaterial for our purposes. Whether a waqf is complete when the declaration of waqf is made or when a mutwalli is appointed and possession is delivered to him, it is clear that the appointment of a mutwalli may be made either along with the declaration of waqf or subsequently. The right to appoint a mutwalli must naturally vest in the founder of the waqf. He has the power to lay down a scheme for the administration of the waqf and for the succession to the office of mutwalli. He may nominate the successors by name or indicate the class together with their qualifications, from whom the mutwalli may be appointed, and may invest the mutwalli with power to nominate a successor after his death or relinquishment of office, -- 'Ghazanfar v. Mt. Ahmadi Bibi', AIR 1930 All 169 (Z14); --'Shah Gulam v. Mahommad Akbar Sahib', (1875) 8 Mad HC 63 (Z15).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next