Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-01-1892
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal116
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question raised in this reference is of such vital importance to the Mahomedans of India and so materially affects their law and religion, the enjoyment of which has been guaranteed to them by the British Government, that I must state at some length the reasons that have compelled me to differ from my colleagues.2. The facts of the case are as follow:One Bikani Mia, a Mahomedan inhabitant of Dacca, shortly before his departure in 1874 on a pilgrimage to Mecca, executed a wakfnama in respect of a considerable portion of his property and registered the document in accordance with the law.The deed recites that the executant was in the full possession of his sense and power of understanding,' that he was not indebted to anybody, that the property to which it related was acquired by Bikani himself, and that he had an 'exclusive right, ownership and possession therein.3. The executant then goes on to say--I now think it advisable to lay down, according to our Mahomedan sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-08-1892
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal41
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Ghose, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca on the 19th June 1891. It appears that the plaint in this case was presented in the Court of First Instance on the 6th May 1890; but, it being found that it was insufficiently stamped, the following order was recorded: 'The plaint having been filed insufficiently stamped, ordered that the deficient Court-fee be paid within seven days.' Within the time appointed, the plaintiff paid the deficient Court-fee stamp, and the plaint was duly registered; but it so happened that during that time the period within which the plaintiff was bound to institute his suit under the law of limitation had expired, although, upon the date that the plaint was originally presented, it was within time.2. Objection having been raised by the defendant on the score of limitation, the Munsif held that the plaint should be regarded as having been filed not on the 6th May 1890, but on the ...
Tag this Judgment!