PUNJAB WAKF BOARDversusSHAKUR MASIH

A                            PUNJAB WAKF BOARD
                                          v.
                                 SHAKUR MASIH

                                 OCTOBER 1, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

             Mohammedan Law:

             Mussa/man Wakf Validating Act, 1913: s.3:
c         Wakf-Continge11t wakf-Testator executing a will bequeathing all his
  properties i11 favour of his deceased so11's mother-in-law with a note that after
  her death the property would become wakf ai1d the income therefrom would
  be spent for maintena11ce of the Mosque-Held, a disposition by way of will
  give11 in future or subject to the contingency or conditional one is void under
D Mohammedan Law-The bequest creating a wakf conti11gent upon the
  /ifetime of the donee is invalid and contingent wakf is not valid wakf.

          Aamjad Khan v. Ashraf Khan & Ors., AIR (1929) PC 149; Rasoolbibi
    v. Yusuf Ajam Piperdi, AIR (1933) Born. 324; Bai Saroobai v. Hussei11 Somji
    & Ors., AIR (1936) Born. 330 and MT. Mehrai Begum v. Din Mohammad,
E   AIR (1937) Lahore 669, referred to.

         "Mui/a Plinciples of Mohammedan. Law'~ Nineteenth Edn. Edited by
    M. Hidayatullah, ss. 174, 176 and 191, referred to.

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8225 of
F    1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.94 of the Himachal
     Pradesh High Court in R.S.A. No. 97 of 1983.

             A. Sharan, Irshad Ahmad and Arvind K. Shukla for the Appellant.
G
             Seeraj Bagga for Mrs. S. Bagga for the Respondent.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

             This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned
                                                                                      -
H single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla made on
                                           148
                     PB. WAKFBD. v. SHAKUR MASIH                          149

March 16, 1994 in RSA No. 97/93.                                                A
       The admitted facts are that Najaf Khan was the owner of the proper-
ties, namely, houses and shops situafed in Jutog. He had executed a Will
on August 29, 1949 bequeathing all his properties to his son's mother-in-
law, namely, Smt. Musamat Kariman. He added a note to the Will on dated
                                                                                B
29.9.1949 stating thus:

         "After the death of Masomat Kariman, my entire property would
         become wakf and the inconie from that would be spent for the
         maintenance of the Mosque at Jatog. Nobody shall have the right
         either to mortgage or sell these properties."                          c
      The appellant filed the suit for declaration that it is a wakf property
and the respondent has no manner of right whatsoever. All the courts
below have concurrently held that the wakf has not been created by Najaf
Khan and, therefore, the will is void and the wakf thereby has not been         D
created. The question is: whether the view taken by the courts below
including the High Court is correct in law?

      In Chapter XII of the principles of Mohammedan Law, Nineteenth
Edition edited by M. Hidayatullah, former Chief Justice of this Court, it is E
stated that a wakf means permanent dedication by a person professing the
Mussalman faith of any property for any purpose recognized by the Mus-
salman law as religious, pious or charitable. Under Section 174, the dedica-
tion must be permanent. Under Section 176, the subject of wakf must
belong to the wakif, namely, the property dedicated by way of wakf must
belong to the wakif (dedicator) at the time of dedication. Under Section
                                                                                  F
191, contingent wakf is not valid. It is essential to the validity of a wakf that
the appropriation should not be made to depend on a contingency. Where
the deed of wakf provides that the ultimate gift to charity is to take effect
only if a certain person dies without leaving any issue, the rule of contin-
gency under the Mohammedan law would affe.ct such disposition, and the G
position in that respect is not altered by anything in the Mussalman Wakf
Validating Act, 1913. That act undoubtedly authorizes a postponement of
the ultimate gift to charity, which would not have seen valid under the
original law, but it does not abrogate the rule of contingency under the
Mohammedan Law.                                                                   H
    150                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [_1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A         In the will, the testator has stated as under:


             "I am writing this will for the reasons that I have become old and
             I do not know when I would die. I have neither any child and nor
             any legal, heir, the only person who have served me, is my late son
             Gohar Khan's mother-in-law and she is still serving me, and she
B
             also has no legal heir. She does not have any property, for the
             income of which she may be able to maintain herself after my
             death. Since this lady Musamat Kariman has served me devotedly
             and has been looking after my houses and shops which are situated
             at Jatog and I therefore, execute this will, written by me in my own
c            hand writing and attested by the executive officer of the J a tog Cant
           •;;and also signed by the witnesses. Whatever movable and immov-
             able properties I have, she will own and possess these properties.
             She would withdraw my pension and whatever would be left.after
             (meeting expenses in) my burial, she would spend on Fateha as
D            per the Muslim rites and customs."

           A reading of it would indicate that the testator's only son died during
    his life time. He ·left behind his mother-in-law, namely, Smt. Musamat
    Kariman who was living with the testator. She also had no other issue. She
E   was looking after him and the properties. Therefore, he had executed the
    Will and bequeathed the movable and immovable properties to her in those
    wors. "She will own and possess these properties. She would withdraw my
    pension and whatever would be left after (meeting expenses in) by burial,
    she would spent on Fateha as per the Muslim rites and customs." Thus, he
    had given the properties by way of absolute disposition to her. The
F   question arises: whether the contingent wakf created in the note would be
    valid in law and a valid wakf has been created thereunder? It has been held
    by the Privy Council inAamjad Khan v. Ashraf Khan & Ors., AIR (1929)
    PC 149, followed by other decisions in Rasoolbibi v. Yusuf Ajam Piperdi,
    AIR (1933) Born. 324, Bai Saroobai v. Hussein Somji & Ors., AIR (1936)
G   Born. 330 and MT. Mehraj Begum v. Din Mohammad, AIR (1937) Lahore
    669, that in Mohammedan Law, if a bequest is made by way of Will in
    future or subject to the contingency, the condition is void. In Section 191
    of the Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan Law it is stated that it is essential
                                                                                      ·-
    to the validity of a wakf that the appropriation should not be made to
H   depend on a contingency. It would thus be clear that a disposition by way
                     PB. WAKFBD.v. SHAKURMASIH                         151

of Will given in future or subject to the contingency or conditional one is   A
void under the Mohammedan Law. A bequest creating a wakf contingent
upon the life time of the Mussamat Kariman is invalid and, therefore, the
contingent wakf is not valid wakf as per Section 191 of the principles of
Mohammedan Law referred to hereinbefore. It would thus be seen that
view taken by the High Court is not vitiated by any error of law warranting   B
interference.

       The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.