Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.71 seconds)
Bibi Saddiqa Fatima vs Saiyed Mohammad Mahmood Hasan on 3 May, 1978 cites

Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak And Ors. vs Rasamaya Dhur Chowdhuri And Ors. on 24 February, 1891

In Abdul Fata Mahomed v. Rasamaya (1) their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the gift to charity was illusory, and that the sole object of the settler was to create a family settlement in perpetuity. The waqf of this kind was, therefore, invalid. Ibis decision aforesaid caused considerable dissatisfaction in the Mohammedan community in India. This led to the passing of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913 which was made retrospective in opera- tion by a subsequent Act of 1930. In view of the Validating Act of 1913 the validity of the wakf was beyond the pale of challenge.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

Moattar Raza And Ors. vs Joint Director Of Consolidation, U.P. ... on 28 November, 1969

In a later Full Bench decision of the same court in Moattar Raza and others v. Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P. Camp at Bareilly and others(1) while over-ruling the earlier decision, it has been said at pages 513-14 :-"the legal status and position of a mutawalli under a waqf under the Musalman Law is that of a Manager or Superintendent." The general powers of the Mutawalli as mentioned in section 529 of Tyabji's book are that he "may do all acts reasonable and proper for the protection of the wakf property, and for the administration of the waqf."
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Ahmed G.H. Ariff & Ors vs Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Calcutta on 20 August, 1969

Mr. Phadke cited the decision of this Court in Ahmed G. H. Ariff & Ors. v. Commissioner of Wealth- Tax, Calcutta(2) and contended that the right of the beneficiaries to get money out of the income of the waqf property for their maintenance and support was their property. In our opinion the case does not help the appellant at an in regard to the point at issue. A hanafi Muslim had created a wakf-alalaulad and on a proper construction of the relevant clauses in the waqf deed it was held that the aliquot share of the income provided for the beneficiaries was not meant merely for their maintenance and support but even if it was so, it would be an asset within the meaning of s. 2 (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The definition of the term 'asses, was very wide in the Wealth Tax Act. The share of the income which a beneficiary was getting under the said waqf was assessable to income tax and following the particular method of evaluation it was held to be an asset for the purposes of the Wealth Tax. The question at issue in the present case is entirely different as will be shown and discussed (1) A.I.R. 1970 Allahabad, 509.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 66 - A N Grover - Full Document

Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad And Others on 9 February, 1951

In the case of Srinivas Ram Kumar (supra) the suit for specific performance of the contract failed. The defendant had admitted the receipt of Rs. 30,000/-. In that event, it was held that a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 30,000/- and interest remaining due under the agreement of loan pleaded by the defendant, even though the plaintiff had not set up such a case and it was even inconsistent with the allegations in the plaint. The Trial Court had passed a decree for the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The High Court upturned it. In that connection, while delivering the judgment of the Court, it was observed by Mukherjea J., as he then was, at page 282 :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 99 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956

In the instant case, there is no question of giving any alternative relief to the plaintiff. The relief asked for is one and the same. The plaintiff claimed that she had acquired the property with her personal funds.The defendant successfully combated this case. He had not said anything on the basis of which any alternative relief could be given to the plaintiff. The facts of the case of Nagubai Ammal (supra) would clearly show that the decision of this Court does not help the appellant at all. The respondent did not specifically raise the question of his pending in his pleading nor was an issue framed or. the point, but he raised the question at the very commencement of the trial in his deposition, proved relevant documents which were admitted into evidence without any objection from the appellants who filed their own documents, cross-examined the respondent and invited the Court to hold that the suit for maintenance and a charge and the connected proceedings evidenced by these documents were collusive in order to avoid the operation of s. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The matter was decided with reference to s. 52. In such a situation it was held by this Court that the decisions of the Courts below were correct and in the facts and circumstances of thecase the omission of the respondent to specifically raise the questionof his pending in his pleading did not take the appellants by surprise.It was a mere irregularity which resulted in no prejudice to the appellants. In the instant case no body at any stage of the litigation before the appeal came up to this Court had taken any stand or said a word any where that money spent in acquisition of the property was the personal money of the plaintiff because as and when the sums were spent they went on becoming her personal money. The evidence adduced and the stand taken in arguments were wholly different. No party had said anything on the lines of the case made out in this Court. Similar is the position in regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Kunju Kesavan. At page 648 Hidayatullah J., as he then was,has stated, "The. parties went to trial fully understanding the central fact whether the succession as laid down in the Ezhava Act applied to Bhagavathi Valli or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 565 - S J Imam - Full Document

Kunju Kesavan vs M. M. Philip I. C. S. And Ors on 8 May, 1963

It is a very novel and ingenuous stand which was taken in this Court to say that all money spent from time to time in acquiring the land and constructing the Kothi was payment by the Raja as Mutawalli to his wife and therefore the property must be held to have been acquired by the lady herself out of her own personal fund. At no stage of this litigation except in this Court such a case was made out in pleading or evidence or in argument. The defendant was never asked to meet such a case. Parties went to trial and evidence was adduced upon the footing that the plaintiff claimed that out of the money given to her by the Raja as pin-money or on the occasions of festivals or otherwise she had saved a lot and out of those savings she had spent the money in acquiring the property. The defendant asserted and proved that the case of the plaintiff was untrue and that all the money came from the waqf fund directly to meet the cost of the ac- quisition of the property. In such a situation it is difficult to accept the argument put forward by Mr. Phadke that pleadings 'should not be construed too strictly. He relied upon three authorities of this Court in support of this argument namely, (1) Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and others(1); (2) Nagubai Ammal & others v. B. Shama Rao & others(2), and (3) Kunju Kesavan v. M. M. Philip I.C.S. and others(3). Let us see whether any of them helps the appellant in advancing her case any further.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 72 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Meenakshi Mills, Madurai vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Madras on 26 September, 1956

It was further added that the plea was hardly necessary in view of the plea made by the plaintiff in the replication. Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Meenakshi Mills, Madurai v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(1) in support of his submission that the question of benami is essentially a question of fact and this Court would not ordinarily and generally review the concurrent findings of the courts below in that regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 126 - S J Imam - Full Document
1   2 Next