Case Details

Citation(s)
1959 SLG 4328 = 1959 SLD 4328 = 1959 PLD 152
West Pakistan Peshawar
Civil Appeal No. 23/3 of 1959, decided on 8th June 1959.  
Presented By: Muhammad Shafi and Abdul Hamid, JJ  
Peer Bakhsh and Abdur Rashid for Appellant.   Abdul Latif Khan for
Respondents 1 to 3.   Allah Bakhsh for
Respondent 4.

Haji MIAN MUHAMMAD-Appellant  

VERSUS

  TILA MUHAMMAD and others-Defendants-Respondents

Law: Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913

Section: 3

(a) Mussalman Wakf Validating Act (VI of 1913)-------   ----S. 3 proviso-Waqf alai-aulad-Ultimate benefit not expressly or impliedly reserved for charitable purpose except that a sum of Rs. 10 per month was to be given away as charity only if waqf property was leased out-Waqf held, not valid, dedication to charity being unsubstantial and illusory.   The validity of a waqf involves that there is an intention to dedicate on the part of the waqif. There should be a substantial dedication of property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim Law as religious, pious, or charitable, and the waqf should not be only a veil to cover arrangements for the aggrandisement of the settlor's family and a device to make the property inalienable. If the preponderating feature of the waqf is intended to be the benefit of the settlor''s family, and the reservation for the purpose recognized by the Muslim Law as religious, pious, or charitable is only illusory, then the waqf, in spite of the use of the word "waqf" in the deed, will not be a waqf validated under the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act.   Where, in the deed of waqf, there was no clear overriding charitable intention, express or by implication, and the direction to pay Rs. 10 per mensem towards charity was not absolute but conditional on the leasing out of the waqf property   Held, that the benefit to charity was unsubstantial and illusory, and the waqif's intention being exclusively to safeguard the benefit of his family and nothing more, the waqf was not valid.   Muhammad Ali v. Dinesh Chandra Roy Choudhury A I R 1940 Cal. 417 and Sayed Mohiuddin Ahmad and another v. Sofia Khatoon and others A I R 1940 Cal. 501 ref.   "Impliedly" used in the proviso attached to section 3 of the Act only means that the reservation can be indirectly inferred from the recitals in the deed coupled with the surrounding circum stances. There must be some indication, either in the introductory portion of the deed, or in the recitals of the facts, or the recital of the object and purpose, from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the waqif had a possible ultimate benefit…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register