JUDGMENT

1. The following genealogical table will show the relation of the parties:

              Ghulam Chishti Khan                        |       --------------------------------       |                |             |  Abdul Karim     Ibrahim Khan.   Abdul Majid      Khan                          Khan.       |  Ahmad Said     Khan

2. 1. Gulam Chishti Khan by his Will, dated 10th Safer 1281 Hijri, corresponding to the 16th June 1867, created a waqf of certain immovable property "to defray the expenses of the poor, the faqirs, the orphans, the needy and the indigent, and to defray the expenses of other good deeds". Regarding the trusteeship of the endowment, he in his Will said: "I covenant that as long as I am alive I shall continue to spend, with my own hands and of my own authority, the income derived from the said villages for the sake of God and that after me one of my male descendants who is qualified shall continue to spend it generation after generation in the way and manner in which I was doing."

3. During his life-time, Gulam Chishti Khan continued to manage the waqf property. After his death his son Abdul Karim Khan succeeded to the trusteeship. Abdul Karim Khan died on the 31st August 1903, Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, the plaintiff, Abdul Majid Khan and Ahmed Said Khan, the defendants, could not agree as to who should be the trustee of the property. Under a registered agreement of the 19th February 1909, the parties referred their dispute to arbitration. The arbitration made their award and the plaintiff u/s 20 Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure, applied to file the award in Court. Objections were taken by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge, in his order dated the 12th August 1909, came to the conclusion that the award was void in law and disallowed the application with costs. The plaintiff has appealed from that order to this Court. At the hearing of the appeal, an objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the question of succession to the trusteeship of such a charity, as had been created by the Will of Gulam Chishti Khan, could not be referred to arbitration and that the learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for filing the award in Court. This point Was not taken before the Court below, but as it is a very important point and will affect the administration of charities, we granted permission to argue the point.

4. For a satisfactory decision of the question raised the following points have to be determined. Id the charity created by the Will of Gulam Chishti Khan a public or a private charity? If it is a public charity, what are the prerogatives of the Crown with reference to it?

5. As the term charity has been imported from the English Law it is desirable to give a definition of that term as understood in that Law. The preamble to the Statute 43 Elizabeth C. IV contains an enumeration of charitable objects. The relief of aged, impotent and poor people is among these objects. See Tudor on Charities, page 36, 4th edition. The same author on page 37 says: The purposes which have been held charitable within the language or spirit of this preamble, may be grouped under four heads Moricer v. Bishop of Durlan Commissioners of Income tax v. Permal (1891) SC : 583, Per Lord Macnaghten. Re Foreaux : (1) the relief of poverty; (2) education; (3) advancement of religion; (4) other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads-. These may be conveniently termed general public purposes.

6. In the first place it may be laid down as an universal rule that the law recognises no purpose so charitable unless it is of a public character Jones v. Williams (1767) Amb 651; Ommanney v. Butcher (1823) T.R. 273; Goodman v. Mayor of Saltaol (1882)7 A.C. 650 : Re Christ Church Enclosure Act (188S) 38 Ch. D. 532, that is to say, a purpose must, in order to be charitable, be directed to the benefit of the community or a section of the co