SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Mad) 235

BURN
Syed Ismail Sahib alias Syed Tahsildar Sahib – Appellant
Versus
Ethikasha Sarguru alias Syed Chandu Sahib – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Burn, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order passed by the learned District Judge of Madura in O. P. No. 60 of 1938. That original petition was filed under Section 10 of the Mussalman Wakf Act, XLII of 1923, desiring the lower Court to punish the respondents by way of fine for failure to discharge their duties under the Wakf Act in connection with a darga called Hazarat Mohaiat Shaw Darga at Anuppanady village, near Madura. The respondents denied that any such wakf existed, and pleaded that it was only a Criminal Court that could impose the fine indicated under Section 10 of the Act. The learned District Judge thought that it was the District Court that had the jurisdiction to impose the fine, but held that since the wakf itself was denied, it was not competent for him to hold an enquiry into that matter.

2. With regard to the first point, I am of opinion that the learned District Judge has not come to the correct conclusion. He relied upon the decisions in Nasrullah v. Wajid Ali I.L.R.(1932) All. 475 Kalekhan v. Karim (1934) 37 Bom.L.R. 207 and Abdul Hadi v. Abdul Latiff A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 135. But in all these decisions it is noticeable that the learned Judges have









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top