• Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Bangla
• Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Urdu
• Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Download
• Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf English
• Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Online
• Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf

MOHAMMEDAN LAW 405 a complete way of life, a religion, an ethic and a legal system all in one.7 This gives Muslim law its dynamic quality vmoulding the social order and community life. Mohammedan law shall have no application. Marriages under native law and custom Whoever contracts a Mohammedan marriage being at any time married in accordance with native law and custom to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, and without having first obtained a divorce.

Handboek voor het Mohammedaansch regt (Handbook of Mohammedan law) is a guide in Dutch to Islamic law by Salomo Keijzer (or Keyzer, 1823‒68), doctor of humanities and law, and teacher in the humanities and social sciences of Netherlands India (i.e., the Dutch East Indies, or present-day Indonesia) at the Royal Academy in Delft. The book includes an introduction on the origins and sources of.

Description

Principles of Muhammadan Law By D F Mulla. This work has been manually deigned for the use ‘of students, as a guide to their study of Mahomedan Law. Hence, for a speedy and convenient grasp of its principles?, I have cast them in a series of distinct propositions, systematically” arranged in the order of collective sections, illustrated by decided cases applicable to each section. The language of judgments to be found in the recognized reports so far as practicable, been faithfully reproduced in the statement of each proposition, in order to impart to. it the imprimatur of authoritative law, and where such sources have failed, I have fallen back upon the translations of the Hadiths and the Fatwas. Alumgiri, with such modifications as were necessary or proper for the requirements of modern law. The alliterative cases have likewise been imported,almost all,from the same Reports throughout the work, except in the Chapter on Inheritance. There is a citation of authority for every proposition I have set out ; and no important decisions have been missed, while enactments amending or repealing the ancient rules have been noted in their appropriate place. I have fallen back upon the translations of the Hadiths and the Fatwas. Alumgiri, with such modifications as were necessary or proper for the requirements of modern law. Principles of Mahomedan law By D.F Mulla The alliterative cases have likewise been imported,almost all,from the same Reports throughout the work, except in the Chapter on Inheritance. Principles of Muhammadan Law By D F Mulla There is a citation of authority for every proposition I have set out ; and no important decisions have been missed, while enactments amending or repealing the ancient rules have been noted in their appropriate place. I have fallen back upon the translations of the Hadiths and the Fatwas. Alumgiri, with such modifications as were necessary or proper for the requirements of modern law. The alliterative cases have likewise been imported,almost all,from the same Reports throughout the work, except in the Chapter on Inheritance. There is a citation of authority for every proposition I have set out ; and no important decisions have been missed, while enactments amending or repealing the ancient rules have been noted in their appropriate place. Principles of Muhammadan Law By D F Mulla

Citation: 13 BLC 606, 14 BLC (AD) 32, 14 BLC 553, 16 BLC 10, 16 BLC 431, 16 BLC 267, 12 BLC 202, 12 BLC 202, 11 BLC 329, 11 BLC 694, 11 BLC 617, 12 BLC 202, 12 BLC 202, 16 BLC 10, 16 BLC 791, 15 BLC 338

Subject: Mohammedan Law

Delivery Date: 2018-07-03

Mohammedan Law

Talab-e-mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishaad—

From the deposition of PW 1 it is clear that he did not assert that immediately after he came to know about the sale in question demanded preemption of the land transferred by the kabala in question by jumping and thus talab-e-mowasibat was observed and then he, in presence of the two witnesses by referring to his said immediate demand of preemption requested the seller or the buyer or on the land transferred to accept the kabala money and execute and register the necessary sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and thus strictly observed the formalities of talab-e-Ishaad and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to file the suit for preemption.

Monir Miah vs Shafiqur Rahman13 BLC 606.

There may not be presumption of jointness of family in the Muslim Law, but the fact has been established that after the death of Faizuddin Sheikh, father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.l, the members of Faiz-uddin's family were in one mess and the income of the property left by Faizuddin was in the common fund of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.l and in the background of the said fact the lower appellate Court observed that by the money of the joint fund of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.l the auction purchase was made. It was not established that the defendant No.2 had any independent source of income.

Daliluddin Sheikh vs Alek Sheikh 14 BLC (AD) 32.

On appraisal of evidence of PW 1 Moijan Bibi, and it appears that there is no specific evidence that she did not put her left thumb impression in the register book and she also failed to show that her signature appears in the registered book is not her signature. Therefore, learned Judge of Court of appeal below as a final Court of facts came to a definite findings that deed of gift and Heba-bil-Ewaz were executed by plaintiffs which is correct. The trial Court without considering the materials on record, particularly transfer of Land by deed of Arponnama in favour of plaintiffs, decreed both the suits which are not correct.

Aleton Bewa vs Md Zakher AH Sonar 14 BLC 553.

Section 35—

According to Mullah's Mohammedan Law charge of lian does not of itself terminate the marriage. The marriage continuous until the decree is passed. In this case where husband made allegation against his wife of adultery, so in such a situation there is no alternative but to pass an order of separation (divorce).

Ntirul Islam vs Nur Ayesha Begum 16 BLC 10

Sections 117 and 118—

A Moham­medan cannot dispose of more than V₃rd of his properties by way of gift or wasiatnama of his estate unless the heirs give consent before or after the death of the testator. Plaintiff's personal property and his home­stead also cannot be included in the wasiatnama but the same was included in the wasiatnama even testator's sister's property was included in the wasiatnama which shows that the testator was not in sound mind when he executed and registered the wasiatnama

Dudh Meher vs Jobed AH Pahlowan 16 BLC 431

Section 207— Waqf Estate — transfer ability of —

Mutuwalli not to transfer save with permission of court.

Zareen Biscuit Company vs Sayed M. Salimullah 16 BLC 267.

Section 231—

Admittedly, the aforesaid suits were heard analogously. But the pre-emptor failed to point out on which portion of the 'A' Schedule land the alleged demands were made. This is also fatal for the pre-emptor. PW 1 further stated in cross that be so how he could perform the Talab in accordance with the provisions of Muslim Law. Besides, PW 2 and PW 3 are silent about the reference of Talab-i-Muwsibat while making Talab-i-Ishhad. The consistent view of all the superior courts of the sub-continent is that at the time ofmaking demand non-reference to the first demand is fatal to the case of the claimant of the right of pre-emption. For the foregoing reasons the plaintiffs-respondents have miserably failed to prove the performance of the Talabs in the instant case which is fatal for the plaintiffs.

Youmisco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—

In Article 28(1) of the Constitution it has been laid down that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. It, thus, appears that Muslim Law of pre-emption so far it is applicable to the urban property is discrimi­natory and a Muslim citizen is placed at a higher plain than the other non-Muslim citizens of the State and this also affects the secular nature of the Republic. Muslim law of pre-emption in so far as it relates to the town property is void on the ground that it discri­minates between a citizen and a citizen on the ground of religion and faith, inasmcuh as under section 24 of the Act a non-Muslim contiguous land holder cannot maintain an action for pre-emption but a Muslim can. The law of pre-emption as laid down in section 231(3) in Mullah's Principles of Moham­medan Law, i.e. right to pre-empt a sale as a Shafi-i-Jar which is right of pre-emption based on vicinage, appears to be unconstitutional and offends the provision of Article 42(1) read with Article 31 of the Constitution as it imposes an unreasonable restriction on power of alienation of property and/or acquiring property. So, the provisions of Muslim law of pre-emption, so far it relates to Shafi-i-Jar, is declared to be void as it offends Article 42(1) of the Constitution.

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—

In the instant case, vendor is a company so also is one of the vendees i.e. plaintiff No. 1 is a company and they are incapable of having any faith in any religion. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no scope to invoke the provisions of Suffa under the Muslim Law. The suits are misconceived and not maintain­able in their present forms and manner. Only a natural person can become a Musalman and profess the faith of Islam. A juridical person is incapable of following any religion. It is true plaintiff No. 2 is a natural person but the suits as framed cannot be maintained by him solely as there is no averments in the plaint nor in evidence to show contiguity of his land with the suit land. The plaintiffs cannot invoke the right of Suffa in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is now well established that in a pre-emption suit the plaintiff must establish his exclusive ownership into the contiguous land as Shafi-i-jar. Therefore, finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs are the owners of the 'B' Schedule land is erroneous and against weight of evidence. Withholding the impartial witness who admittedly accompa­nied PW 1 on 9-3-1997 and 19-3-1997 also speaks volumes against the plaintiffs and it appears to us to be a fit case where adverse presumption can be drawn that if any of the neutral persons would have been examined they would hot support the case of the plaintiffs.

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—Barred by limitation—

The instant suit is under the Muslim Law. No doubt, in the agreement it is stipulated that the sale shall not be completed unless the sale deed is registered. But this stipulation cannot stand in the way of the pre-emptor if he wants to pre-empt the sale under the Muslim Law. In the present case, the plaintiff has instituted the suit under the Muslim Law but it appears that he made the demands long after the sale was completed under the Muslim Law. The admitted position is that the agreement Exhibit A was executed on 16-8-1995 and part payment was also made on that day and physical possession of the property was also handed over to the vendee. On receipt of payment of full consideration the sale deed was executed and presented for registration on 7-3-1996 and the suit was filed on 30-6-1997 which is well beyond the period of limitation. It thus appears that the suits are also barred by limitation but unfortunately, this material legal aspect of the case was totally lost sight of by the trial Court and in arriving at a finding that the suit is not barred by limitation it erroneously relied on the provisions of General Law which has no manner of application to the instant case.

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—

Under the Muslim Law the right of pre-emption is allowed to a claimant in consideration of his necessity and not as a matter of luxury. This principle should always be kept in mind while determining the claim of pre-emption. The plaintiffs are already owners of vast tract of lands i.e. the 'W Schedule land. They have already erected two industries in two different portions of the 'B' Schedule land and unutilised lands are still there. The plaintiffs have never explained why they need the suit land. The suit land is not 'Aqar' or houses or small land. 'Aqar' or land alone can be the subject matter of pre­emption where the subject matter of pre­emption consists of a share in a village or a large estate. But neither a neighbour who is not a co-sharer nor a participator in appendages can claim it on the ground of merely of vicinage.

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—

Both the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff has discharged his onus to observe the legal formalities i.e. Talab-i-Mousibat and Talab-i-Ishad in demanding the suit land. There is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below.

Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Kazi Liakat Ali 11 BLC 329.

The appellate Court correctly found that the payment of consideration at a later day i.e. handing over of Holy Quran after 4 days, did not make the Heba-bil-ewaj invalid. It appears that the payment of consideration in advance and payment of consideration subsequently could constitute valid Heba-bil-ewaj if the other two essential elements i.e. actual payment of consideration and the intention of the donor to divest itself from the title really exist. Although section 168 of Mulla's Principles of Mohamadan Law is silent on the point of actual time of payment of consideration in order to make a valid Heba-bil-ewaj yet the superior Courts of this Sub-continent held that the consideration in Heba-bil-ewaj may be made at any time, be itin advance or afterwards. The shifting of onus upon the defendant No.l in respect of proving the genuineness of 2nd deed of Heba-bil-ewaj dated 3-1-1978 was correctly done which the defendant No.l miserably failed to discharge and, as such, the genuine­ness of the 2nd deed of Heba-bil-ewaj dated 3-1-1978 has not been proved. The appellate Court without considering this aspect allowed the appeal which needs interference by this Court.

Fazhd Haque Malik vs Nurjahan Begum 11 BLC 694.

Wasiatnama —

Wasiatnama legally takes effect after the death of propositus but in present case the wasiatnama speaks of taking effect during the lifetime of propositus rendering it to be a void document. Moreso, the wasiatnama in question contains some conditions contrary to the provisions of Mohammedan Law and stands as a void document and such void document needs no declaration for setting-aside. Before acquiring title to the property one cannot transfer it to another and if it is done so, it would be a void document.

Ambia Khatun vs Abdus Salam 11 BLC 617.

Section 231 —

Admittedly, the aforesaid suits were heard analogously. But the pre-emptor failed to point out on which portion of the 'A' Schedule land the alleged demands were made. This is also fatal for the pre-emptor. PW 1 further stated in cross that be so how he could perform the Talab in accordance with the provisions of Muslim Law. Besides, PW 2 and PW 3 are silent about the reference of Talab-i-Muwsibat while making Talab-i-Ishhad. The consistent view of all the superior courts of the sub-continent is that at the time of making demand non-reference to the first demand is fatal to the case of the claimant of the right of pre-emption. For the foregoing reasons the plaintiffs-respondents have miserably failed to prove the performance of the Talabs in the instant case which is fatal for the plaintiffs.

Yonnusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—

In Article 28(1) of the Constitution it has been laid down that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. It, thus, appears that Muslim Law of pre-emption so far it is applicable to the urban property is discri­minatory and a Muslim citizen is placed at a higher plain than the other non-Muslim citizens of the State and this also affects the secular nature of the Republic. Muslim law of pre-emption in so far as it relates to the town property is void on the ground that it discriminates between a citizen and a citizen on the ground of religion and faith, inasmcuh as under section 24 of the Act a non-Muslim contiguous land holder cannot maintain an action for pre-emption but a Muslim can. The law of pre-emption as laid down in section 231(3) in Mullah's Principles of Moham­medan Law, i.e. right to pre-empt a sale as a Shafi-i-Jar which is right of pre-emption based on vicinage, appears to be unconstitu­tional and offends the provision of Article 42(1) read with Article 31 of the Constitution as it imposes an unreasonable restriction on power of alienation of property and/or acquiring property. So, the provisions ofMuslim law of pre-emption, so far it relates to Shafi-i-Jar, is declared to be void as it offends Article 42(1) of the Constitution.

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—

In the instant case, vendor is a company so also is one of the vendees i.e. plaintiff No. 1 is a company and they are incapable of having any faith in any religion. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no scope to invoke the provisions of Suffa under the Muslim Law. The suits are misconceived and not maintain­able in their present forms and manner. Only a natural person can become a Musalman and profess the faith of Islam. A juridical person is incapable of following any religion. It is true plaintiff No. 2 is a natural person but the suits as framed cannot be maintained by him solely as there is no averments in the plaint nor in evidence to show contiguity of his land with the suit land. The plaintiffs cannot invoke the right of Suffa in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is now well established that in a pre-emption suit the plaintiff must establish his exclusive ownership into the contiguous land as Shafi-i-jar. Therefore, finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs are the owners of the 'B' Schedule land is erroneous and against weight of evidence. Withholding the impartial witness who admittedly accompa­nied PW 1 on 9-3-1997 and 19-3-1997 also speaks volumes against the plaintiffs and it appears to us to be a fit case where adverse presumption can be drawn that if any of the neutral persons would have been examined they would not support the case of the plaintiffs.

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—Barred by limitation—

The instant suit is under the Muslim Law. No doubt, in the agreement it is stipulated that the sale shall not be completed unless the sale deed is registered. But this stipulation cannot stand in the way of the pre-emptor if he wants to pre-empt the sale under the Muslim Law. In the present case, the plaintiff has instituted the suit under the Muslim Law but it appears that he made the demands long after the sale was completed under the Muslim Law. The admitted position is that the agreement Exhibit A was executed on 16-8-1995 and part payment was also made on that day and physical possession of the property was also handed over to the vendee. On receipt of payment of full consideration the sale deed was executed and presented for registration on 7-3-1996 and the suit was filed on 30-6-1997 which is well beyond the period of limitation. It thus appears that the suits are also barred by limitation but unfortunately, this material legal aspect of the case was totally lost sight of by the trial Court and in arriving at a finding that the suit is not barred by limitation it erroneously relied on the provisions of General Law which has no manner of application to the instant case.

Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Bangla

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 231—

Under the Muslim Law the right of pre-emption is allowed to a claimant in consideration of his necessity and not as a matter of luxury. This principle should always be kept in mind while determining the claim of pre-emption. The plaintiffs arealready owners of vast tract of lands i.e. the 'B' Schedule land. They have already erected two industries in two different portions of the 'W Schedule land and unutilised lands are still there. The plaintiffs have never explained why they need the suit land. The suit land is not 'Aqar' or houses or small land. 'Aqar' or land alone can be the subject matter of pre­emption where the subject matter of pre­emption consists of a share in a village or a large estate. But neither a neighbour who is not a co-sharer nor a participator in appendages can claim it on the ground of merely of vicinage.

Younusco K Textiles Ltd vs Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Ltd 12 BLC 202.

Section 336(2)—

It is settled principle that if the marriage is consummated, the wife is entitled to get her whole of the unpaid dower, both prompt and deferred.

Nurul Islam vs Nur Ayesha Begum 16 BLC 10.

Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Urdu

Sections 352 and 370—

According to the Mohammedan Law father is bound to maintain his sons. So the mother is the custodian of the minor son till he has completed the age of seven years. The maintenance of the child must be paid by the defendant from 10-5-1992 to 6-10-1995.

Nurul Islam vs Nur Ayesha Begum 16 BLC 10.

Section 359—

Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Download

In view of the provisions of section 359 of the Mohammedan Law and section 27 of the Guardians and Wards Act the father is entitled to sell the property of the minor for its benefit as a legal guardian.

Renu Begum vs Khandokar Enamul Mowla 16 BLC 791.

Section 370—

Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf English

Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf Online

On perusal of the section 370 of the Mohammeden Law it is clear that it has been made mandatory upon the father to maintain his unmarried daughter till married. Admittedly the plaintiffs Nos. 2-4 are unmarried and they are students and, as such, they are entitled to have maintenance. The status of the defendant is Government Officer. It is not the case that the father (defendant) does not have enough means to maintain his daughters.Renwflra

Mohammedan Law By Mulla Pdf

Begum vs Mir Md Shamsuzzaman 15 BLC 338.