AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question for decision in this second appeal is, whether right to recover a sum of money under a decree can be made the subject of wakf
according to Muhammadan Law. We are of opinion that it cannot. Even if the proposed subject of the wakf be regarded as the money which may
(problematically) be recovered under the decree, we think that the weight of authority and argument is opposed to the plaintiffs'' contention that the
wakf is valid. The question has lately been discussed in a most elaborate judgment by Mr. Justice Woodroffe in the Calcutta High Court, and his
conclusion is that ""unless a moveable is accessory to land or allowed because of certain traditions concerning the prophet and the sacred writings
or there is a custom to make wakf of it, it cannot be lawfully appropriated"". Kulsoom Bibee v. Gulam Hussain Cassim Asiff 10 C.W.N. 449 and
this decision has been followed by Mr. Justice Russell in the Bombay High Court Bai Fatmabai v. Gulam Husain 9 Bom. L.R. 1337. No doubt the
decision is opposed to some earlier decisions Abu Sayid Khan v. Bakar Ali 24 A.n 190; Sakina Khanam v. Laddan Sahiba 2 C.L.J. 218; Banubi
Umar Sahib v. Narasingarao Runagiro Mani 9 Bom. L.R. 91 but we think that good reasons are given for dissenting from them. The only decision
of this Court which has been referred to in the argument before us is in accord with the view we have adopted Kaleloola Sahib v. Nusurudeen
Sahib 18 M.k 201. In the present case no alleged custom has been relied upon. We must, therefore, hold that the wakf is invalid and dismiss the
second appeal with costs.