Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
N.R. Abdul Azeez And Others vs E. Sundaresa Chettiar And Others on 10 January, 1992 cites

Said Maher Husein vs Haji Alimahomed Jalaludin on 27 November, 1933

In Maher Husain v. Alimahomed, AIR 1934 Bombay 257 it was held that to create a wakf there must be a declaration of dedication which should be made contemporaneously with the act of dedication. The Wakf must divest himself of the ownership of the properly. But special rules apply where mosques are dedicated as wakf. Where a building has been set apart as a mosque it is enough to make it wakf if public prayers are once said there with the permission of the owner. Though a declaration of dedication and completion by some act giving practical effect to it are essential, it is always not necessary that there should be any direct evidence of these things. Dedication may be inferred from long user that property was wakf property. Where for a considerable number of years the public have been offering prayers in a mosque close by a tomb of a Mahomedan saint, and an annual uras attended by persons belonging to momin sect of Mahometans has been regularly held it must be presumed that the mosque and the tomb have been duly dedicated and have become wakf by user and that the presumption might fairly be extended to other buildings and land enclosed within a compound wall which might be regarded as appurtenant to the tomb.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By L.Rs. ... vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 22 March, 1976

In Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, the land in dispute was originally acquired by a Muslim saint about two hundred years ago. Some years later the predecessors of the respondents built a mosque therein with the permission of the ancestor of the appellants and the then owner of the land. The adjacent vacant land was used as a graveyard for the Muslims of the village. There was a scheme suit in respect of this property wherein it was contended that there was no public wakf of the mosque which was only a private or family mosque, that there was no declaration of dedication for the purpose of a mosque and that the prayers offered in the mosque by the respondents were only by leave and licence of the founder. The graveyard was also not a public wakf but the family graveyard of the appellants wherein corpses of other Muslims were allowed to be buried on payment of pit fees. Held that in the case of a mosque, the founder's permission or the bare act of allowing the members of the Mohammedan public to offer prayers amounts to a complete delivery of possession. The owner of the land has given his tacit consent when he allowed the mosque to be constructed not for the private members of his family but for the worship of God by the entire Mahomedan public. By providing a separate entrance, the owner agreed to separate the mosque from the rest of the property by allowing the entire Mahomedan Community of the village to worship in the mosque and to perform other ceremonies. The owner of the land gave delivery of possession to the mosque. A place may be dedicated as a mosque or masjid without there being any building. But since the building in the nature of a mosque was built a clear case of dedication has been made out. Once the mosque was constructed it stood dedicated to God and all the right, title and interest of the owner got completely extinguished. Once there was a complete dedication to the mosque as a place of public worship any reservation imposed by the owner would be deemed to be void. Under the Muslim law once the dedication was complete, the property passed from the owner to God and it never returns to the owner and therefore the question of the mosque being private can never arise. The very concept of a private mosque is wholly foreign to the dedication of a mosque for a public purpose under Muslim law. Under that system of law once the founder dedicates a particular property for the purpose of a public mosque, no Muslim can be denied the right to offer prayers in the mosque. The law is so strict that the moment even a single person is allowed to offer his prayers in a mosque it becomes dedicated to the public. Also, any adjuncts to a mosque, which are also used for religious purposes, become as much part of the mosque as the mosque itself. The argument that there was no formal dedication is unsound. The act of permitting the Mahomedans of the village to build a mosque itself amounts to a complete dedication or a declaration that the mosque is a public property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 278 - S M Ali - Full Document
1