TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Wakf Deed Declared Void Under Mussalman Wakf Validating Act - Court Orders Charitable Allocation</h1> <h3>Abdul Karim Adenwalla Versus Rahimabai</h3> Abdul Karim Adenwalla Versus Rahimabai - AIR 1946 Bom 342 Issues:Validity of a wakf-alal-aulad under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act of 1913.Analysis:The plaintiff filed a suit challenging the validity of a deed of wakf executed by Haji Ahmed Moosa, seeking a declaration that the deed is void and inoperative. The deed in question aimed to establish a wakf-alal-aulad for the maintenance and support of the settlor's family and descendants. The court had to determine whether the wakf complied with the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act of 1913, which allows for the creation of wakfs for the benefit of family, children, or descendants, with the ultimate benefit reserved for charitable purposes recognized by Mahomedan law. The settlor reserved the income of the trust property for his absolute use during his lifetime, which raised questions about the nature of the reservation and whether it aligned with the Act's provisions.The settlor outlined specific charitable objects in the deed, such as marriage expenses, payments to poor relatives, and feasting certain community members. The court analyzed each charitable provision to determine its compliance with Mahomedan law and the Act. The court found that some provisions, like feasting the community members, did not qualify as charitable objects under Mahomedan law. Additionally, the court questioned the permanence and feasibility of some charitable provisions, especially in the event of the settlor's family and descendants becoming extinct.The court scrutinized the settlor's intentions and the overall charitable nature of the wakf deed. It concluded that the deed did not demonstrate a clear charitable intention or a dominant charitable purpose, as the income allocated for charitable objects was insufficient relative to the total trust income. The court also highlighted the distinction between reserving income for maintenance and support versus reserving it for absolute use, emphasizing the importance of the purpose behind such reservations in the context of the Act.While declaring the wakf deed void and inoperative under the Act, the court acknowledged a specific provision in the deed that directed trustees to spend a portion of the income on charitable objects. The court deemed this provision a valid charitable gift in praesenti through a trust, allowing the trustees to fulfill this obligation despite the overall invalidity of the wakf-alal-aulad. The court directed the trustees to set aside a specific amount for a charitable object that met the criteria of Mahomedan law.In conclusion, the court held that the wakf deed was not a valid wakf-alal-aulad under the Act due to various shortcomings in the charitable provisions and the nature of income reservation. The court directed the trustees to distribute the remaining trust estate to the settlor's heirs, excluding certain parties who had released their interests. The court adjourned the suit for further directions on the disposal of trust properties, with costs to be borne by the trust estate.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
