Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Insight: This case clarifies the legal stance on land rights, possession, and the application of special statutes concerning land disputes.
Jeet Singh v. State of U.P. (1980 ALJ (NOC) 115)
Insight: Reinforces the approach to land disputes involving possession and statutory rights.
Chandbi v. (Bombay High Court)
Insight: Highlights judicial attitude towards land sale deeds and possession rights, relevant to the case's land dispute context ["1983 0 Supreme(All) 857"].
Sheikh Moin Uddin v. (Related Pre-emption Case)
Insight: Demonstrates judicial approach to pre-emption rights and connected contractual obligations, relevant to property disputes.
Cases involving land and property disputes with similar legal issues:
Moin Uddin Ahmad's role as a manager and litigant in cases related to land and property rights, including cases where land sale, possession, and inheritance rights were contested ["1999 0 Supreme(All) 1441"], ["
MOHD. MOIN @ TULSI PRASAD VS BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER - Chhattisgarh
"].Cases involving criminal allegations and land disputes:
The cited cases collectively address issues of land rights, possession, sale deeds, and statutory interpretation, which are central to the subject matter in Smt. Ajmerylussan v. Moin Ahmad. Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of special land laws, respecting possession rights, and considering contractual obligations like pre-emption and security bonds. These precedents provide a comprehensive legal backdrop for similar cases involving land disputes, land sale, and possession rights, aligning with the principles laid down in the primary case.
References:- ["1983 0 Supreme(All) 857"]- Jeet Singh v. State of U.P. (1980 ALJ (NOC) 115)- Chandbi v. (Bombay High Court)- ["1933 0 Supreme(All) 341"]- ["1999 0 Supreme(All) 1441"]- ["
MOHD. MOIN @ TULSI PRASAD VS BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER - Chhattisgarh
"]- ["2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1505"]
In Muslim family disputes in India, determining the exact date of divorce is crucial, especially in cases involving maintenance under , property claims, or matrimonial status declarations. Courts rigorously scrutinize claims of divorce under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), as governed by the . A common query arises: cite similar case laws with the connected subject as in . This case, like many others, highlights the need for concrete proof of divorce dates amid contested family matters. This post examines key precedents, proof standards, and related cases, drawing from judicial rulings to guide understanding. Note: This is general information, not legal advice; consult a lawyer for specific cases. (The party claiming divorce bears the burden... Courts investigate via evidence, not mere pleas. 1983 0 Supreme(All) 857)
Muslim divorces can be extra-judicial (, , ) or judicial under the . The Shariat Act mandates Shariat rules for dissolution, including , , , , , and .
2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 1567 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640
2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640
2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1352 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640
under Section 7(1) Explanation (b)/(d) of the Act, 1984, declare status post-extra-judicial divorce via summary inquiry.
2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1352
The claimant (typically husband in maintenance or land cases) bears the burden. Standard: , stricter for . Courts probe pleadings, summon witnesses, and verify documents. In land ceiling disputes, authorities investigate pleas to evade laws. 1983 0 Supreme(All) 857 2014 0 Supreme(J&K) 542
| Evidence Type | Validity/Precedents ||---------------|---------------------|| / Nama/ Agreement | if executed; endorsed if voluntary.
2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1352 || Oral Pronouncement | Requires witnesses and communication; unproved fails. 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 30 2014 0 Supreme(J&K) 542 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 432 || Affidavits/Notices | Insufficient alone (lawyer notice ≠ ). 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1370 2014 0 Supreme(J&K) 542 || Plea in Written Statement | Pre-Shamim Ara: Divorce from filing if prior unproved. Overruled post-2002: Needs proof. 1983 0 Supreme(All) 857 1993 0 Supreme(Ori) 334 1960 0 Supreme(Bom) 42 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 352 2014 0 Supreme(J&K) 542 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1370 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 30 1998 0 Supreme(Ori) 91 || Witnesses/Jamat | Direct proof needed, not hearsay. 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 30 |
observance and conciliation attempts bolster claims. 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640 2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 503
Older cases treated unproved prior pleas in written statements as divorce from filing date:- - -
Applied in land/maintenance. 1983 0 Supreme(All) 857 2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 503 1993 0 Supreme(Ori) 334 1960 0 Supreme(Bom) 42 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 352
Plea alone ≠ pronouncement; witnesses/communication essential. Overrules commentaries like Mulla/Tahir Mahmood. Affidavit in unrelated suit irrelevant. 2014 0 Supreme(J&K) 542 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1370 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 30 1998 0 Supreme(Ori) 91
endorse via inquiry (statements, documents), no full trial:- For : Check signatures/voluntariness.
2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1352 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2109- Kerala HC guidelines (): Notice, 1-month disposal, video allowed.
2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640
Rejections upheld sans proof, e.g., no witnesses for triple . 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 432
| Reference | Holding ||----------|---------|| 1983 0 Supreme(All) 857 | Investigate pleaded date; unproved → later date (older). || 2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 503 | Prior needs proof; uncommunicated memos irrelevant. ||
| + statements → declaration. || 2014 0 Supreme(J&K) 542 | Shamim Ara: No proof → fails. || 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1352 | Post- declared. || 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 30 | Photocopy + hearsay insufficient. || 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1370 | Plea unproved; no deeming. || 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 432 | Triple dismissed sans evidence. || 1998 0 Supreme(Ori) 91 | No evidence → unproved. || 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1640 | on agreement. |
Related disputes echo these: In a dowry case compromise, witnesses like Mohd. Moin signed, resolving via amicable settlement (FIR quashed). 2010 0 Supreme(All) 1472 The above said compromise has been signed by the witnesses Ahmad Hasan, Shahid Hussain, Mohd. Moin... Property injunctions () show ongoing family tensions.
Similar proof burdens in partnerships require special agreements for entrustment. 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 1249
Cases like connect to maintenance/property fights. Compromises in dowry (IPC 498A) often settle via payments, quashing FIRs when parties redress grievances. 2010 0 Supreme(All) 1472 In evidence matters, secondary proof (e.g., will copies) needs foundational loss proof, akin to divorce documents. 2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 1604 The mere leading of secondary evidence... is not itself a proof of its execution. Dying declarations demand fit mind proof, paralleling reliability. 2011 0 Supreme(Ori) 480
Post-Shamim Ara, courts demand rigorous proof for divorce dates under Muslim law, protecting against unsubstantiated claims in disputes like those in . Prioritize , witnesses; offer summary endorsement for mutual divorces. Older pleading-as-proof views are obsolete. Key takeaways:- Formal pronouncement + communication essential. 2014 0 Supreme(J&K) 542- Burden on claimant; failures maintain marital status.- Approach for declarations.
Balance Shariat autonomy with evidence safeguards. For tailored advice, seek professional counsel.
#MuslimDivorceLaw, #TalaqProof, #ShamimAra
I had an occasion to consider these decisions and follow them in the case of Smt. Ajmerylussan v. Moin Ahmad (1983 All LJ. 1332) The relevant date is 8.6.73. Notices were issued to the tenureholders including Musharraf Ali after the aforesaid date. ... An objection of a similar nature was also filed separately by Smt. Hashmatun Nisa,. She pleaded that the land, which was recorded in her name was in her exclusive possession. ... A similar view was exp....
How is it connected with the offence? ... Let the applicants Moin Khan and Ali Ahmad be In fact, in the instant case ... , FIR has been lodged by the applicant Ali Ahmad.
How is it connected with the offence? ... Let the applicants Moin Khan and Ali Ahmad be In fact, in the instant case ... , FIR has been lodged by the applicant Ali Ahmad.
The above said compromise has been signed by the witnesses Ahmad Hasan, Shahid Hussain, Mohd. Moin and Sageer Ahmad. ... 7. ... In the case crime No. 1001 of 2009 at P.S., Chakeri, the police has submitted a final report in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, wherein the informant of the case namely Ahmad Hasan shall move an application or the affidavit as the case may be. ... However, the husband and in-laws were not satisfied....
. - 10 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 889 of 2021 Petitioner :- Hazi Moin Respondent :- Smt. ... Hazi Moin and others) with further prayer to direct the Civil Judge (S.D.), Amroha, to decide the interim injunction application filed in Suit No.263 of 2020 (Smt. Shajila Begum Vs. Hazi Moin and others). ... Shajila Begum Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Srivastava,Parvez Ahmad Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. .....
Finally, when Ahmad Baksh was confined in jail in some other case, then she gathered courage and called her father telephonically, returning to her parental home. ... Then Ahmad and Mahavir kept her at Babu Lal's house. Then they kept her at one rented house, which was arranged by Moin Khan. On 13.5.2015, Moin Khan and Sher Khan came there and raped her turn by turn. ... The grouse of petitioner Shabnam alias Reeta is that she has been involved in this case due to extraneous re....
P.W. 5 Mumtaz Ahmad is the informant of this case. He narrated the entire prosecution story. According to this witness also Moin and Pappu pulled down the informants son on the ground and went on pressing his hands and leg. ... ... 18. in the facts and circumstances of the case, appellants named Moin Uddin, Md. ... Akil, P.W. 5 Mumtaz Ahmad (informant) and P.W. 6 Muktinath Singh. It appears that P.W. 1 simply identified his signature as Exhibit-1 on the inquest report. P.W. 2 turned h....
Sri Moin uddin Ahmad claiming be the manager on the basis of election held on 26th September 1997. Sri Masrooruddin Ahmad claiming to be the Manager on the basis of election held on 30th November 19%. ... The parties in these litigations will appear before the Regional Joint Director of education, Moradabad on 11th of October, 1999 to represent their case. It will be open to the parties to take such plea as are permissibile to them. ... The Regional Joint Director of Education, moradabad will decide the case#HL....
Moin @ Tulsi Prasad, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Aged About 55 Years Caste Sondhiya, R/o Ward No. 19, Manendragarh, District -Korea Chhattigarh ... ... Girls Middle School, Nayee Ledari, District- Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - Riyaz Ahmad S/o Shri Nisar Ahmad Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Manendragarh, District- Korea Chhattisgarh ... ... Agrawal Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 04.02.2026 1. Head on I. A. ... Learned counsel for the applicant submits that MCC No. 708/2022 was allowed vid....
. - 8 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 623 of 2023 Applicant :- Sageer Ahmad Opposite Party :- Smt. Anamika Singh, Prin. Secy. ... Shameem Khan,Abdul Haleem Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Shri M.
Moin, his testimony is unreliable as in another case bearing no.54 of 1980 (Smt. Dharma Vs. Ram Sanwari) wherein the same witness Mohd. Moin has deposed and his testimony was found to be unreliable in the said case. In this regard, the finding of the lower appellate court is based on the premise that once of the witnesses who had entered into the witness-box to prove the said agreement, namely, Mohd. Thus, for the said reason, the lower appellate court found the testimony of Mohd.
Veerana Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1947 has been relied upon. On similar point, judgment in case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. So, taking into consideration all these facts, it cannot be ex-facie said that there was no guilty intention/ knowledge on the part of the petitioners in hurriedly proceeding with the disposal of the pledged jewellery in somewhat irregular manner.” Next judgment relied upon is in case of Sushil Kanta Chakravarty vs. State and Ors. in which it was observed that in case of partnership every partner has dominion over the partnership property by ....
Similar observations were made in case Smt. Raj Kumari vs. The court, in those circumstances, had permitted the leading of the secondary evidence. Shri Lal Chand (1994-1) P.L.R. 190 wherein it was observed as under :-
The entire case is based upon the oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased before P.Ws.3 and 4. Om Prakash and Others, has held that one of the important tests of the reliability of the dying declaration is a finding arrived at by the court as to satisfaction that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and capable of making a statement at the point of time when the dying declaration purports to have been made and/or recorded. In a similar case, the apex Court in Smt. Laxmi Vs.
For the wife must be treated as divorced the moment the plaint is filed….” 7. The trial Court relied upon a judgment reported in Ajmerylussan v. Moin Ahmad 1983 All LJ 1332 wherein it has been stated as follows: “Suit by a Mohamedan husband for a declaration that he had divorced his wife cannot be dismissed for want of evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
