Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 83 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 84 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By L.Rs. ... vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 22 March, 1976
13.Further the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 1569 (Mohd S.Labbai v. Mohd Hanifa)
and would specifically draw reference to paragraphs 17 and 35, which are
extracted hereunder:-
Board Of Wakf, West Bengal vs Anis Fatma Begum & Anr on 23 November, 2010
15.As regards the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the
availability of alternative remedy as provided under Section 83 of the Wakf
Act, the learned counsel would also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2010)14 SCC 588 (Board of Wakf, West Bengal and
another vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another) wherein he would draw the
attention to paragraphs 7 and 10, which are extracted hereunder:-
C.Mohammed Yunus vs Syed Unissa And Others on 14 February, 1961
12.The learned counsel for the first respondent would contest the claim
of the petitioner that the appointment to the post of Muthavalli is by
hereditary in nature. According to the counsel, the Court has held that such
appointment is not hereditary and in respect of his contention, he would rely
on the decision reported in AIR 1961 SC 808 (Mohammed Yunus vs. Syed
Unnissa and others). The relevant paragraphs 8 to 10 are extracted
hereunder:-
Mohammad Soleman Molla And Ors. vs Tasadduq Hossain And Ors. on 17 June, 1935
3. Further, the Muslim Law does not recognize any right of inheritance
to the office of Muthavalli (Vide S.206 in the Principles of Mohamedan Law,
by Mulla 18th Edition). No doubt, the very same section in the above text
book says that the office of Muthavalliship may become hereditary by custom
in which case the custom should be followed. For this proposition, no doubt,
Mahammed Soleman V. Tasaddug Hassan, [AIR 1935 Calcutta 623] Mohomed Haji
Harron Kadwani, In re, [AIR 1935 Bombay 254] Phatmabi v.Haji Musa [(1913)
L.L.R 38 Madras 49] and other decisions have quoted as authorities. But, so
far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, this law based on custom cannot be applied,
in view of the amendment made by the legislature of then State of Madras to
the Central Enactment, Shariat Act, 1937, by Madras Act 18/49. While the
Central Enactment Shariat Act, abolished customary law on several matters, it
retained the customary law so far as ?Charities and charitable institutions
and charitable and religious endowments?. But, by the above said Madras
amendment to charities and charitable institutions and charitable and
religious endowments, only the Muslim personal law is made applicable and not
any custom or usage to the contrary. This is clear from the above said
amendment introduced to S.2 of the Shariat Act, 1937.
1