Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Section 83 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Wakf Act, 1995
M.P. Wakf Board vs Subhan Shah (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 31 October, 2006
This Court rendered the said decision in
the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M.P. Wakf
Board v. Subhan Shah (2006)10 S.C.C. 696 .
Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyapura ... vs Pattakkal Cheriyakoya And Ors. on 13 June, 2003
The principles stated by the Division Bench in
Pookoya Haju v. Cheriyakoya, 2003(3)K.L.T. 32 was followed in the
decision reported in Madeena Masjid v. Kerala Jama Ath Islami Hind,
2007(3) K.L.T. 800. The question before this Court in the aforesaid cases
was whether on a dispute on Wakf property, the exclusive jurisdiction is
on the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act or whether
the civil court has got any jurisdiction over the matter. This Court held
that that a joint reading of Sections 83, 85 and 87 of the Act would clearly
show that the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on any dispute,
question or other matter relating to any Wakf and Wakf property or other
matters which are to be determined by the Tribunal constituted under
Section 83 of the Act.
Section 70 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors on 12 December, 2006
11. It is a settled position that so far as territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at
the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of
issues. The law is also well settled on the point that if such objection is
not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent
stage. Jurisdiction as to subject matter, however, is totally different. If
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of
any limitation imposed by the statue, any orders or judgments passed by
such a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. The Supreme Court in the
decision reported in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad
(2007)2 S.C.C. 355 held that distinction must be made between the
decree passed by a court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction
in the light of Section 21 C.P.C. and a decree passed by the court having
no jurisdiction in regard to the subject matter of the suit. The Supreme
Court held that whereas in the former case, the appellate court may not
interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily, the second
category of the cases would be interfered with.