ABDUL WAHAB Vs. MTSUGHRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are defendant's appeals arising out of two suits, one brought by Mt. Sughra Begam the respondent in Second Appeal No.473 of 1929, and the other by Rahim Bakhsh, the respondent in Second Appeal No.474 of 1929, for recovery of arrears of maintenance fixed by Khurshed Ali Khan who executed a deed of wakf on 1 April 1919, by which he dedicated property yielding a net income of Rs. 7,000 a year for certain charitable purposes. Khurshed Ali Khan died on 28th December 1926 up to which date he acted as mutawalli. The defendant-appellant succeeded his father in the office of the mutawalli. Among other provisions contained in the deed of wakf one is in favour of the respondents who were old servants of Khurshed Ali Khan. A certain amount was mentioned in the deed of wakf to be paid as salaries and pensions of the wakif's servants whose names were not specified, nor were the amounts mentioned.

(2.) It was however clearly stated that particulars as regards names and the amounts should be taken from the pay bills bearing his signature. Apparently the wakif had not decided as to what amount should be paid to each servant, and he reserved the power of nominating; beneficiaries out of the servants and the allowances to each for a subsequent occasion. During the seven years. which intervened between the date of the wakf and his death he paid Bs. 60 a. month to Mt. Sughra and Rs. 30 a month to Rahim Bakhsh. It should be mentioned that the two are wife and husband. The pay bills in which these salaries are entered bear the signature of Khurshed Ali Khan. It has also been found by the lower Courts that the defendant-appellant himself paid allowances to the respondents at the above rates, after the death of Khurshed Ali Khan before the period in suit. Relations between the parties became strained, and it. became necessary for the respondents to-institute the suits which have given rise to these appeals. The defence, so far as it is necessary to state for the purposes of the present appeals was that according to Mahometan law, it is not one of the valid objects of the wakf to make provisions for salaries and pensions, of servants; that no allowances having been fixed in the deed of wakf, subsequent, action of Khurshed Ali Khan should be. considered the act of mutawalli who is not entitled to amend the provisions of the deed of wakf, and that in any case it is open to a succeeding mutawalli to reduce the salaries and pensions to reasonable amounts. Both the lower Courts have overruled these defences and decreed the plaintiff's claim.

(3.) The learned District Judge, who has written an excellent judgment dealing with the various questions raised before him, has held, and we think rightly, that a provision for the salary and pension of servants is a valid object of wakf. In Ameer Ali's Mahomedan Law, Vol. 1, p.276, Edn. 4, a number of valid objects of wakf are stated. One of them is the wakif's own descendants, another is kindred and neighbours. Even strangers are mentioned as objects of bounty. Dependants and servants are specifically mentioned as persons for whose maintenance provision can be made in a wakf. Tyabji in his notes under Section 457 of his book on Mahomedan Law, Edn. 2, has also mentioned that provisions for individuals may be a charitable object according to Mahomedan notions. We entertain no doubt that the view taken by the learned District Judge is correct and is borne out by the authorities to which reference has been made. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that only the poor can be beneficiaries under the wakf, if they do not belong to the family of the wakif. He argues that in so far as Mt. Sughra and Rahim Bakhsh are possessed of other sources of small incomes, they cannot be classed among the indigents. He has quoted no authority in support of his contention which is opposed to the rules given by Ameer Ali and Tyabji already referred to. The words " rich and poor " are relative terms, and it cannot be stated that a person having a certain minimum income cannot be considered to be indigent in any circumstances. It is obviously a very laudable act for a Mahomedan to make a provision for his faithful servants. We may note that the pensions granted to the respondents are for their lives only and that after their death, that part of the income will lapse into the general purposes of the wakf.