Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.18 seconds)

Abdul Sattar Ismail vs Abdul Humid Sait on 7 March, 1944

The contrary view taken by Varadaraja Iyengar, J. in Koyamkutty v. Muhammad, 1957 Ker LT 874, is based on a misunderstanding of the scope of the decision of the Madras High Court in Abdul Sattar Ismail v. Hamid Sait, AIR 1944 Mad 504. The relevant portion contained in the document that came up for consideration by the Madras High Court was one for the reading of the Quran in public places and also at private houses and not merely at the residential house of the wakif or any member of his family. The Madras High Court found on the construction of the said recital contained in the document that the reading of the Quran provided for therein was for the benefit of all Musalmans since it was to be performed by expending the funds of the wakf both in public places as well as in private houses. We are unable to regard this decision as an authority laying down that a provision for the reading of the Quran in the private house of the donor will constitute a valid object for creation of a wakf.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Nawab Zain Yar Jung And Others vs The Director Of Endowments And Others on 9 April, 1962

"4. It is fundamental for the creation of a valid wakf that there should be a permanent dedication of the property forming the subject-matter of the wakf for any purpose recognised by the Musalman law as religious, pious or charitable. What is involved in the creation of a wakf is "the tying up of property in the ownership of God the Almighty and the devotion of the profits for the benefit of human beings. As a result of the creation of a wakf, the right of wakf is extinguished and the ownership is transferred to the Almighty" (see Zain Yar Jung v. Director of Endowments, AIR 1963 SC 985 at 989). In the case before us, under the deed Ext. A2 there is no dedication, at all, of either the corpus or even the income of the property for any religious or charitable purpose. The ownership of the property is not transferred in favour of God the Almighty; on the other hand, it is expressly stipulated that the property shall remain as the joint property of executants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and they are to hold the property from generation to generation subject only to the restrictions that the property should not be alienated in favour of any strangers nor burdened with debts, attachments or injunctions and that from out of the income the recitation of Quran and reading of Moulood in the family house should be got performed. Since the basic requisite that there should be a permanent dedication of the property for religious or charitable purposes is not satisfied in the present case, it must be held that no valid wakf has been created in respect of the plaint schedule property under Ext. A2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 34 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Abadi Begum vs Kaniz Zainab on 1 November, 1926

Physical delivery is not essential, but such possession as is possible must be given: Abadi Begum v. Kamiz Zainab. There are special .rules in the case of mosques--Willson's Anglo-Mahomedan Law, Section 320; Amir Ali's Muhammadan Law, Vol. 1, page 394 ff.; and Tyabji's Principles of Muhammadan Law, Section 514. When once 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. But though a declaration of dedication and completion by some act giving practical effect to it are essential, it was not always necessary that there should be any direct evidence of these things.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 Next