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

1929 Supreme(All) 362

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
MUKERJI, YOUNG, JJ.
Mohammad Abdul Wahid Khan - Appellant
Versus
Radha Kishun & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-05-1929

JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - This is an application to revise an order of the District Judge of Moradabad, made on 13th September 1927 under the following circumstances. A certain Mahomedan gentleman made a waqf of his property for the benefit of his descendants, on 20th August 1915. The aforesaid property was subject to heavy encumbrances. The mutawalli for the time being, Mt. Jafri, who was the daughter of the dedicator, made an application to the District Judge of Moradabad, seeking his permission to sell a portion of the property of village Lohari Khadar. She had arranged with one Radha Kishen, one of the opposite parties in this case, that a 14 biswa share should be sold to Radha Kishen for the sum of Rs. 13,500. The learned District Judge granted the permission sought. Radha Kishen, as a matter of precaution, made an application to the District Judge, on 2nd September 1927 asking him to take steps to ensure that there was no litigation in future with respect to the property purchased by himself. He said, in the petition, that the property was waqf and people might, thereafter, raise all sorts of objections to the sale. Radha Kishen, therefore, proposed that the District Judge should issue a notification stating that so much property was being sold for so much, to such and such person and calling upon any person, who might be interested to do so, to file any objection before the Court. The District Judge acceded to this request and a notification was issued. Abdul Wahid Khan, the applicant before this Court sent in a letter to the District Judge saying that he had heard that the property was being sold and he offered to pay Rs. 16,000 for the share 14 biswas, for the sale of which the District Judge had already granted permission for Rs. 13,500 The learned Judge directed Abdul Wahid Khan to appear before him on the 8th September, which date he had fixed for the appearance of persons who might be interested in the sale of the property. On that date, as the order sheet shows, in the presence of Radha Kishen and his counsel and Jafri Begum's counsel, the Judge accepted Abdul Wahid's offer of Rs. 16,000 for the sale of 14 biswas share. The same day, apparently, after Abdul Wahid Khan had left the Court, Radha Kishen made an application to the District Judge that without foregoing his right to bring a suit to obtain a specific performance of the contract for the sale that may exist in his favour, he was offering the sum of Rs. 16,000, for the property. The learned District Judge in the absence of Abdul Wahid Khan, made the following order:

This is not unreasonable. I have no objection to the sale in favour of Radha Kishen for Rs. 10,000. My only reason for preferring Abdul Wahid was that he was offering a larger sum.

2. Abdul Wahid Khan, having come to know of this later order, presented a petition to the District Judge on 13th September complaining that the order in favour of Radha Kishen had been made ex parte, in his absence. He offered, by his petition, to pay Rs. 18,000 an amount being in excess of Radha Kishen's offer, by Rs. 2,000. He pointed out that it was to the interest of the waqf property that it should fetch as much price as was possible. On the same day, the learned Judge passed the order complained of. The learned Judge said that he had accepted Abdul Wahid's offer, because, at the time, his was the highest offer; but as Radha Kishen made the same offer and as there was a "sort of agreement" between the mutawalli and Radha Kishen the learned Judge had agreed that Radha Kishen should make the purchase. The learned Judge refused the application of Abdul Wahid Khan but made the remark that it was always open to Abdul Wahid to file a suit against the mutawalli.

3. It is urged on behalf of Abdul Wahid Khan that the learned Judge should not have altered his order of 8th September 1927, in the applicant's favour which had been passed in the presence of all parties and after hearing all parties, and that, in any case, the subseq

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