3270
Sati Das be relieved of their obstruction and molestation. It has been represented to the Emperor that some of the Bohras have removed and carried away the masata(materials) of the said deohara (temple). If this be a fact the said material should be recovered from them and restored to (Sati Das) but if the said material has been used up, their price be recovered from them and paid to Sati Das. It bears the tughra of Shah Jahan in addition to thetughra and seal of Prince Dara Shukoh. there is a note onthe top on the right hand side which begins with the word 'Huwa' and directs the hukkam to act in conformity with thenishan i ali. (JUB, IX, pp. 39-41).13 Rajab 22 Julus/1058 A.H./3 August 1648 A.D.
3320.
In his book
‘Digest of Moohummudan Law’
(first part) Neil B. E. Baillie writes that wakif or appropriator must beowner of the subject of the wakf at the time of making it and if a person usurp a piece of land, create wakf and then purchase itfrom the owner, it would not be a wakf. And if Zimmee giveshis mansion for using it as a masjid for Mussulmans, after hisdeath it would become the inheritance of his heirs. Relevant portions of the said book from page 557, 558, 561 & 562 read asfollows:
“THE legal meaning of wukf , or appropriation, according to Aboo Huneefa, is the detention of a specific thing in theownership of the wakif or appropriator, and the devoting or appropriating of its profits or usufruct in charity on the poor, or other good objects.”“According to the two deciples, wukf is the detention of athing in the implied ownership of Almighty God, in such a
3271
manner that its profits may revert to or be applied fof thebenefit of mankind, and the appropriation is obligatory, sothat the thing appropriated can neither be sold, nor givennor inherited.”“But if a zimmee should give his mansion as a musjid, or place of worship, for Mussulmans, and construct it as theyare accustomed to do, and permit them to pray in it, and they should pray in it, and he should then die, it would become the inheritance of his heirs, according to all opinions.”“It is also a condition that the thing appropriated be theappropriator’s property at the time of the appropriation; sothat, if one were to usurp a piece of land, appropriate, and then purchase it from the owner, and pay the price, or compound with him for other property, which is actuallydelivered up, it would not be a wukf .”“And if a donee of land should make an appropriation of it before taking possession, and should then take possession,the wukf would not be valid.”“If the appropriation were made before taking possession,it would not be lawful.”
3321.
Great jurist
Syed Ameer Ali
in his book
‘Commentaries on Mahommedan Law’
extracting theauthority writes that the wakif must be lawful owner of the property at the time of creation of wakf. Otherwise a wakf isinvalid. Relevant extract from page 225 of the said book readsas follows:
“The subject-matter of the dedication must be the lawful property of the wakif at the time the wakf is made, that is,
3272
he must be in a position to exercise dominion over it.Consequently, if a wakf is made by a person of some property which he has un-lawfully acquired, it would beinvalid, although he may subsequently purchase it from thelawful owner. So also, when a man makes a wakf, for certain good purposes, of land belonging to another, and then becomes the proprietor of it, the ( sic She) wakf is not lawful.”
3322.
In his book
‘Principles of Mahomeddan Law’
D.F.Mullah writes that wakif must be owner at the time of dedication. Relevant extract from page 149 of the said book reads as follows:
“146C. Subject of wakf must belong to wakif.— The property dedicated by way of wakf must belong to the wakif (dedicator) at the time of dedication (s).”
3323.
In
AIR 1975 SC 2299 ( Indira Nehru Gandhi v.Rajnarain)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through theHon’ble Justice M. H. Bag, J. (as His Lordship then was)explaining the law of sovereignty in paragraph 526 to 571, in paragraph 527, 532-534 and 571 held that the Muslim Rulers aswell as the Hindu Rulers were subject to their respective divinesacred law and the law was king of the kings. Relying on said judgment it is submitted that conversion of SriRamajanamasthan Temple into an alleged mosque either by theEmperor Babar or Aurangzeb in violation of the Law of Shar makes their such act null and alb-into mill and void and such building does not comes within the definition of a mosque.Paragraph nos. 527, 532-534 and 571 of the aforesaid judgmentread as follows:
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 10 of 14
Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict by Prayagraj Allahabad High Court by justices Shri Dharam Veer Sharma, Sibghat Ullah Khan, and Sudhir Agarwal.
RAM, Muslim, hindu, temple, Masjid, mosque, mandir, babri, ram janam bhoomi, ramjanmabhoomi, ramjanmabhumi,… (More)
RAM, Muslim, hindu, temple, Masjid, mosque, mandir, babri, ram janam bhoomi, ramjanmabhoomi, ramjanmabhumi,… (More)
732
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
