<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (7) TMI 1990 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309660</link>
    <description>A suit for declaration and possession was held within limitation because Article 65 of the Limitation Act applied and time ran from adverse possession, with possession found to have been handed over to the Trust in 1978 and suit filed in 1987. The civil court was found competent to decide disputes over Dargah property and management rights, as the matter concerned title and succession to management rather than adjudication of a personal wakf right. Grant of the lesser relief of Mutawali status was permitted where the plaint had claimed the higher status of Inamdar. Concurrent findings on title and ownership were left undisturbed because no substantial question of law arose and additional evidence was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:46:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1990 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309660</link>
      <description>A suit for declaration and possession was held within limitation because Article 65 of the Limitation Act applied and time ran from adverse possession, with possession found to have been handed over to the Trust in 1978 and suit filed in 1987. The civil court was found competent to decide disputes over Dargah property and management rights, as the matter concerned title and succession to management rather than adjudication of a personal wakf right. Grant of the lesser relief of Mutawali status was permitted where the plaint had claimed the higher status of Inamdar. Concurrent findings on title and ownership were left undisturbed because no substantial question of law arose and additional evidence was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>