Characterisation of remuneration: fixed wakf remuneration is not agricultural income of the recipient, unlike a share-based payment.

Fixed remuneration payable to a mutawalli under a wakf scheme is not converted into agricultural income of the recipient because the wakf estate, not the mutawalli, receives agricultural receipts; the mutawalli's entitlement is a management-based fixed remuneration independent of direct possession, collection, or variation in agricultural produce, and therefore retains its separate character. The court distinguished cases where remuneration is a fractional share of wakf income and expressly declined to decide that hypothetical scenario; outcome: such fixed sums are not agricultural income of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether sums drawn by the appellant as remuneration under the wakf scheme (Article 15) constitute agricultural income received by the appellant within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section 1.

Analysis: The Court contrasted the present arrangement with cases where the recipient directly collects rents and exercises ownership-like rights; here the wakf estate receives agricultural income, while the appellant, as mutawalli, receives a fixed remuneration under the scheme. The appellant's right to recover remuneration depends on management duties and the wakf's rights, not on direct possession, collection, or variation in agricultural receipts. Thus the character of the wakf's receipts as agricultural income does not automatically convert the appellant's separately prescribed remuneration into agricultural income of the appellant. The Court noted that a different question would arise if remuneration were a fractional share or percentage of the wakf income, but did not decide that hypothetical.

Conclusion: The sums drawn by the appellant as remuneration under the wakf scheme are not agricultural income received by the appellant; the question of law is answered in the negative.

---