http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MOHAMMED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHAMMED BEKE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Though the  respondent has been served, no one appeared for him.  We requested  Shri E.M.S. Anam, learned counsel to assist the  Court as amicus curiae. We deeply appreciate the valuable assistance  rendered by him in this case. The facts which are fairly not in dispute are as under:      This appeal  by special  leave petition arises from the judgment and  order of  the High  Court of  Kerala  made  on November 16  1993 in  SA No.86 of 1986 and the order made on 12.1.1994 in RP No. 251 of 1993 in SA NO.86/88. The admitted facts are  that  the  appellant,  as  an  owner  of  certain properties,   had executed a registered judgment in which he had mentioned  that one acres 65 cents of land together with buildings and  trees standing on Survey No.612/A situated in Manjalamkunnel Myloor  Kara Varappetty  Pakuthy was given to the father of the appellant for enjoyment during life of the usufruct derived  from them. After his demise the properties would be used for the purpose of Muslim Jamat Mosque. During the life  time of  the father by another dead dated November 30, 1980  the above  provision was  cancelled.  We  are  not concerned with other directions contained in the document.      The primary  question for  consideration is: whether by virtue  of  above  provision  mentioned  in  the  registered document, wakf  stood created  under the Wakf Act, 1954? All the courts  below including  the  High  Court,  concurrently found that  the wakf  had been  created and,  therefore, the appellant has  no right  to cancel  the deed.  The question, therefore, then  is:whether wakf  has been created under the Act? Section  2(1) of  the Wakf  Act, 1954 defines ’Wakf’ as under:      "2(1) ’Wakf’  means  the  permanent      dedication by  a person  professing      island (or any other person) of any      movable or  immovable property  for      any  purpose   recognised  by   the      Muslim law  as pious,  religious or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    charitable and includes-      (i) a  wakf  user  (but  such  wakf      shall not  cease to  be a  wakf  by      reason  only  of  the  user  having      ceased irrespective  of the  period      of such cesser.)      (ii) grants (including  mashrut-ul-      Khidmat   (muafies. Khairati,  qqzi      services,   madad-mash)   for   any      purpose recognised by Muslim Law as      pious,  religious   or  charitable,      and)      (iii) a Wakf-alal-aulad.      Provided that  in  the  case  of  a      dedication   by    a   person   not      professing Islam, the Wakf shall be      void  if,  on  the  death  of  such      person,  any   objection  to   such      dedication is raised by one or more      of his legal representatives."      Section 2 (r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 also defines ’Wakf’ in   similar terms  except the  words "or  any other person" which are  omitted in  the latter  Act: however,  the latter definition is  not relevant for purpose of this case.  Under the Hanafi  law, a  wakf can  be made first in favour of the wakf himself,  descendants, kin  etc,  and  then  for  other objects.   According to  Abu Yusuf,  whose opinion  has been adopted by  the  Hanafi  jurists  in  India,  the  wakf  may lawfully retain  the profits  for himself.   As  regards the lawfulness of  the wakfs  in favour  of one’s descendants or kins, all  the schools and jurists recognise the validity of such wakfs.      In Garib  Das and  Ors vs.  Munshi Abdul Hamid and Ors. [AIR 1970  SC 1035],  one Tassaduk  Hussain was the owner of the disputed house and he admittedly executed a deed of wakf on June 21, 1914 in respect of the same for the benefit of a mosque and Madrasa at Nathnagar and had the same registered. In terms  of the deed, the donor was to remain in possession of the house as Mutawali and his wife was to be the Mutawali after his  death.   The documents  provided that  after  the death of  both the  husband and wife., the Mutawali would be elected by  the panchas of the Muslim community of Nathnagar and so  long as  the donor  and his  wife were  living, they would maintain  themselves form  the income  of the property and spend  the balance  left for the mosque and the Madrasa. The question,  under those circumstances, arose; whether the wakf had  been created?   It  is seen that the document, the wakf deed,  was exclusively  created.   He parted  with  the possession as  an owner  and became  a Mutawali  thereunder, and, though he and his wife were enjoying the income derived form them  and the  residue was utilised for maintaining the wakf,  it  was  pleaded  that  wakf  had  been  created  and accordingly the  Mutawali had  no right  to claim  exclusive right as  an  erstwhile  owner.    This  question  was  also considered elaborately  by another  bench of  two judges  of this Court  in Syed  Mohd. Salie  Labbai (dead)  by LRs. and Ors. vs.  Mohd. Hanif  (dead) by  LRs. and Ors.[1976 (3) SCR 721].  At page 746, this Court held thus:      "It  is   not  necessary   for  the      dedication of  a public mosque that      a Muttawali  of a  Pesh Imam should      be appointed  which could  be  done      later by  the members of the Muslim      community.   All that  is Necessary      is   that   there   should   be   a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    declaration  of  the  intention  to      dedicate   either    expressly   or      impliedly and  a divestment  of his      interest in  the  properly  by  the      owner  followed   by  delivery   of      possession. Here  also the delivery      of possession  does not involve any      ritual formality  or any  technical      rule.   For instance in the case of      a mosque  if the  Mahomedans of the      village,  town   or  the  area  are      permitted to  offer  their  prayers      either on  the vacant  land or in a      mosque built  for the  said purpose      that amounts  to  the  delivery  of      possession and divestment and after      the prayers  have been  offered the      dedication    becomes     complete.      Unfortunately  the   Courts   which      decided  the   previous  litigation      between the  parties do  not appear      to be  aware of  the considerations      mentioned above."      After an elaborate consideration of all the authorities on the  subject, this  Court laid down there propositions as under:      It would  thus appear that in order      to create  a valid  dedication of a      public   nature,    the   following      conditions must be satisfied:      (1) that  the founder  must declare      his   intention   to   dedicate   a      properly  for   the  purpose  of  a      mosque.  No   particular  form   of      declaration   is   necessary.   The      declaration can  be  presumed  from      the conduct  of the  founder either      express or implied:      (2) that  the founder  must  divest      himself   completely    form    the      ownership  of   the  property,  the      divestment can be inferred from the      fact   that    he   had   delivered      possession to  the Mutawalli  or an      Imam of  the mosque.  Even if there      is no actual delivery of possession      the mere  fact that  members of the      Mahomedan public  are permitted  to      offer prayers  with azan ad ikamat,      the   wakf    is    complete    and      irrevocable; and      (3) that the founder must make some      sort of  a separate entrance to the      mosque which  may be  used  by  the      public to enter the mosque."      Ameer Ali at pages 279-80 had stated thus:      "According to  Abu Yusuf  the right      becomes extinguished  by his merely      declaring  that   he  has   made  a      particular property  wakf and  this      is also the opinion of other Imams,      viz. Shafei,  Malik, Hombal  and of      universality  of  jurists,  because      the extinguishment  of the right of      property in  a wakf is like that in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    emancipation.... According  to  Abu      Yusuf such  consignment  not  being      necessary,   the    wakf    becomes      complete by the mere declaration of      the wakf that it constitutes wakf."      At page 339, it is further stated thus:      "That the  rule laid  down  by  Abu      Yusuf is  the accepted doctrine has      already been  shown form quotations      from all  the recognised  works  of      law, such  as the Fatawai Alamgiri,      Fatawai Kazi  Khan,  Fath-ul-Kadir,      Radd-ul-Muhtar,   Ghait-  ul-Bayan,      Tas-hil  and   it  is  unnecessary,      therefore,  to  go  over  the  same      ground again at any length.  It may      be    convenient,    however,    to      recapitulate as briefly as possible      the  accepted  principles  on  this      branch of the question.      (1) That a wakf is valid and lawful      by consensus.      (2) That  it becomes  absolute  and      operative according  to Abu  Yusuf,      immediately on  the declaration  of      the   wakf,    in    other    words      immediately upon his signifying the      factum of the dedication.      (3) That  no particular  words  are      necessary to  create a  wakf.    So      long as  it is evidence form the or      the conduct  of  the  wakf  that  a      permanent dedication  or settlement      is intended, it is enough.      (4) That  a wakf  may be  made by a      Muslim  in   favour  of  an  object      whether terminable or otherwise not      regarded as sinful in the Mussulman      Law.      (5) That  where a  wakf is made for      objects  that   are  terminable  or      liable to  extinction the  ultimate      benefit  will   continue  for   the      ’poor’ even  though it may not have      been destined for them expressly."      At page 343, it is stated:      "The principles  of  the  Mussulman      Law, it  is submitted  were rightly      apprehended in  the case  of Fatima      Bibi vs.  The Advocate  General. In      this case,    West,    J.  said  as      follows:      " If  the condition  of an ultimate      dedication to a pious and unfailing      purpose be satisfied, a wakf is not      made  invalid  by  an  intermediate      settlement   on    the    founder’s      children  and  their  descendants."      (It must  be noted  that this is by      consensus, without  any  difference      of opinion  between Abu Yousuf, the      law  will   presume  the   ultimate      dedication to  an unfailing purpose      from the use of the word wakf)."      It would thus be clear form the authorities cited above

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

that the  founder must declare his intention to dedicate the property  for   the  mosque.    A  specific  declaration  is necessary. The  founder must divest himself  completely from the  ownership  of  the  property.  The  diversment  can  be inferred form  the fact  that he delivered possession to the Mutawali or  an Imam  of the  mosque. If  there is no actual delivery of  the possession,  the mere  fact that members of the Mohammedan  public are  permitted to  offer prayers with azan  and  ikamat  does  not  make  the  wakf  complete  and irrevocable.   The founder  must also  make some sort of way which may  be used  by the public to enter the mosque.  From the facts  it is  seen that  the property  was in  exclusive possession and  enjoyment of the father during his life time enjoying the  usufruct thereof.  There was no dedication and public was  not allowed  to have any prayers on the property as mosque: nor the public had access to it.  During the life time of  the father himself, the appellant had cancelled the deed. Under  these circumstances,  the necessary  tests laid sown by  this Court have not been satisfied to conclude that a wakf has been created in respect of the above properties.      The view of the Courts below is not correct in law. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The suit ultimately stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there will be  no order as to costs.