Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Section 5 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat And ... vs Nori Vekatrama Deekshithulu And Ors on 26 April, 1991
It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
suit filed by the wakf Board was not maintainable in view of Section 14 of
the Inams Act. We having found that the property was a service inam granted
to individuals burdened with service, which answered the description of all
the ingredients of wakf, the Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Inams Act;
was not required to adjudicate as to whether it is a wakf property or not.
His decision holding that the. property is not a wakf property was not
within his domain and the decision could not be said to have been passed
under the Inams Act. Decision or order contemplated under Section 14 of the
Inams Act presupposes an order passed within jurisdiction. Since order
passed by the Tahsildar has been found to be without jurisdiction. Section
14 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be
attracted in the subsequent suit. In the present case, since it was not
within the domain of the Tahsildar to embark upon an enquiry in respect
Wakf property, Section 14 of the Inams Act cannot affect the
maintainability of the suit filed by the Wakf Board. Learned counsel for
the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Vatticherukuru
Village Panchayat and others v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and others,
[1991] S.C.R. p. 531, in support of his argument that by virtue of Section
14 of the Inams Act, the decisions of the Tahsildar cannot be challenged in
a subsequent suit. No doubt, in this case, it was held that the Inams Act
gives finality to the orders and decision given by the authorities, but it
is not the case here. We have already held that the Tahsildar under Section
3 of the Inams Act was not competent to enquire into or give decision in
respect of the character of the Wakf property, therefore the said decision
is of no assistance to the argument of the learned counsel.
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors vs Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy on 26 February, 1970
In Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai, A1R[1971]SC 2355, this Court observed
as follows :
Section 14 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Richpal Singh And Others Etc vs Dalip on 9 September, 1987
In Richpal Singh v, Dalip, AIR (1987) SC 2205, this Court held thus : "A
salutary and simple test to apply in determining. whether the previous
decision operates as res jurdicata or on principles analogous thereto is
to find out whether the first Court, herein the Revenue Court, could go
into the question whether the respondent was a tenant in possession or
mortgagee in possession. It is clear in view of language mentioned before
that it could not. If that be so, there was no res judicata. The subsequent
civil suit was not barred by- res judicata.
Pandurang Mahadeo Kavade And Ors. vs Annaji Balwant Bokil And Ors. on 5 February, 1971
In Pandurang Mahadeo Kavade v. Annaji Balwant Bokil, [197l] 3 SCC .530, it
was held that in order to operate res judicata it must be established that
the previous decision was given by a Court which had jurisdiction to try
the present suit and the plea of res judicata would not be available if the
previous decision was by a Court having no jurisdiction.