( 51 ) I cannot read the term 'wakf property as embracing property impressed with the character of a charitable trust amongst the Hindus. A property burdened with the obligation of a charitable trust as under. stood in Hindu Law cannot be called a wakf property in a legal sense. In a non-legal popular sense it may be possible to use the expression wakf indiscriminately for and in relation to any property set apart for charity. But in legal technology the word 'wakf has a definite and accepted connotation. It is in, that sense that the word has to be understood. For the true interpretation of the word one must turn to Mohammadan Law and see what it means.

( 52 ) NOW the question is : Was Rai Kedar Nath making a wakf of his properties when in the meeting of 1916 he made a declaration in favour of charity ? The answer to this question is in a resounding negative. This is on the assumption that a Hindu can create a wakf though such cases are rare.

( 53 ) THE function held at that meeting shows that Rai Kedar Nath did two things. He renounced his interest in his private property. He dedicated everything to the institution he founded. These are known as Samarpan and Sankalp in Hindu Law. There was a clear and unequivocal declaration of intention to create a trust and vesting of the same in the donor as a trustee. There was clear proof of dedication in the ceremony he performed. He divested himself of the property dedicated.

( 54 ) THERE was a hawan ceremony. This shows that Rai Kedar Nath was an orthodox Hindu. He was a believer in religious ceremonies. What he wanted to do was to found a charitable trust of which he himself was the founder trustee, apart from being the Manager of the School and the President of the society. He created a Foundation as the name of the plaintiff now shows. He established an institution together with provision for its perpetual maintenance.

( 55 ) IN evidence this trust has been called by the Secretary as 'educational Charitable Institution'. In the deed of settlement dated November 26, 1946, it was described by the British Government as "a public educational charity". All in all it comes to a charitable endowment. It can be properly called a charitable trust. The Indian Trust Act will not govern it, as Section I of that Act lays down. What Rai Kedar Nath created was a charitable trust as known to Hindu law. Reading the notification as a whole, it appears to me that the wakf property as known to Muslim Law has been excepted from the acquisition proceedings. This has been done by the Government in exercise of its powers of eminent domain. I do not think that it will be proper to call the lands in question as wakf property. This is not the sense which that word bears in the notification. In my opinion, the Chief Commissioner's notification uses the expression 'wakf property' in the sense in which wakf is understood in Mohammadan Law.

( 56 ) THE Chief Commissioner's notification under s. 4, Land Acquisition Act is in the nature of a statutory instrument. It uses the expression "wakf property". How do we interpret these words ? I think these words must be construed according to the legal and technical meaning given to them by Muslim. Law. They are not to be given the more popular, non-legal or ordinary dictionary meaning of the word. These words must be taken in their legal sense. As Lord Macneghten said in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pemsel (1891) A. C. 531 (14):"in construing Acts of Parliament it is a general rule-that words must be taken in their legal sense unless a contrary intention appears. "

( 57 ) I now take up the issue. Issue No. 1 Since the Foundation claims that their lands are exempted under the notification dated November 13, 1959 that is their cause of action for bringing the suit. Issues 2 and 5

( 58 ) UNDER s. 34, Specific Relief Act any person entitled to "any right as to any property" may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such right. The c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document