The main legal point established in the judgment is that clear intention to create a wakf is essential, and the mere declaration of the wakif is sufficient to complete a wakf. Once a wakf is validly created, the wakif's personal interests in the property are completely extinguished, and the wakif cannot cancel the wakf.

First defendant in O.S.422 of 1982 of the Munsiffs Court, Muvattupuzha is the appellant. Plaintiff (respondent) filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from constructing any building in the plaint schedule property on the ground that it is a wakf property. The trial Court decreed the suit and it has been confirmed by the II Addl. Sub Judge, Ernakulam in A.S.155 of 1985.

2. Plaint schedule property belonged to the 2nd defendant. He gifted the property along with other items to the Gist defendant. First defendant executed Ext .A-1 settlement deed in favour of his father second defendant giving him the right to take income from the properties during his life time. There are stipulations in Ext.A-1 that after the death of the second defendant one item of property (plaint schedule property) is dedicated for the purpose of a jammath mosque, that the income from the second item to be utilised for payment of salary to the teachers in the Madras a and the income from the third item to be utilised for a public library. Plaintiff a member of the jamaath contended that the first defendant has no right to cancel Ext.A-1 as the properties were dedicated for religious and charitable purposes.

3. Defendants filed written statement contending that Ext. Al is only a settlement deed and not a wakf, that the first defendant never intended to create a wakf, that he continued to be in possession of the properties, that he cancelled Ext.A-1 by executing Ext.B-12 and that at the time of execution of Ext.A-1 he was mentally deranged. Another contention is that no mutually was appointed as per Ext. A-1 and therefore no valid wakf has been created with respect to the properties. Courts below over-ruled the contention of the first defendant that ExLA-1 was executed at a time when he was suffering from mental disorder. That being a concurrent finding of fact this Court cannot interfere.

4. A wakf can be created either orally or in writing. If the latter mode is adopted registration cannot be avoided. Though no particular form is required for constituting a wakf clear intention to create it must be there and whenever such intention is manifest wakf character of the property cannot be questioned. Recitals in Ext.A-1 unfold the intention of the first defendant to create a wakf and merely because no mention is made with regard to the appointment of a mutawalli in the document it cannot be said that the wakf is not complete. Abu Yousuf says a wakf is completed by the declaration of the wakif and appointment of mutawalli is not necessary for its completion. Abu Hanifa declared that wakf is complete only after a decree extinguishing wakif's right in the property. Imam Mohammed held the view that wakf is not completed by a mere declaration. According to him wakf is completed only when a mutawalli is appointed and possession of the property is minded over to him. View of Abu Yusuf that wakf is complete on the declaration foyer wakif and appointment of mutawalli is not a necessary condition for the validity of was his been accepted by several authorities. Calcutta, Patna, Rangoon, Madras', Boimtoy & Lahore High Courts have followed the view taken by Abu Yusuf that a wakf is completed by mere declaration. Thus the settled legal position is that a mere declaration is sufficient to constitute a wakf and a transfer of property from the wakif 's name into his name as mutawalli is not necessary. Nor is it necessary to appoint a mutawalli in the wakf deed itself. As declaration of creation of a wakf is manifested from the recitals in Ext.A-1 failure to mention that a mutawalli should be appointed and possession of the property should be delivered to him cannot be considered to be in derogation of the very creation of wakf. In Garibdas v. M.A. Hamid (AIR 1970 SC 1035) the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that the property should-be transferred from the name of the donor as owner into his name as mutawalli. As no particular