JUDGMENT

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the Judgment of Agha Haider, J., dated 18th March 1935, reversing that of the District Judge dismissing the defendant respondents' appeal.

2. The sole question is, wheather a certain property left by one Fazal Hussain is waqf as claimed by the Muslim community of Amritsar whose representatives were the plaintiffs in the original suit and are now the appellants before us. The learned Judge has decided against the appellants on two grounds: (1) if the rely on the will of Fazal Hussain dated 27th June 1920, the waqf is void on account of uncertainty; and (2) if they seek assistance from the rent deed dated 28th April 1923, the document is inadmissible for want of registration.

3. We may say at once that the decision of the learned Judge cannot be maintained.

4. Taking the will first, we find that there is an unequivocal intention on the part of the testator to dedicate the property in suit, to 'rafah-i-am ahl-i-Islam shadi wa ghami' which literally translated means for the benefit of the Muslim community on the occasions of their rejoinings and mournings. This is neither indefinite nor vague. Not only the community to be benefited is specified by this phrase but the object of the dedication is also well-defined Anyone who is acquainted with the social life of the Punjab Muslims knows full well what the words in the will import and to what occasions they refer. Among the class of people to which the founder of the waqf belonged, on the occasion of every funeral, members of the brother hood assemble for some days after the obsequies are over and friendly visitors pour in all these days for condolence Similarly, on the occasion of every marriage especially that of a female relation, marriage processions have to be feasted and entertained. In a town like Amritsar, where the population is congested and the people can hardly find room enough for themselves in their small houses,: funeral or marriage parties cannot be lodged there. It is a real need to have a place reserved for such occasions where the residents of a Mohalla or a town belonging to a certain community may find accommodation and this want is felt by the rich and poor alike. Any public-minded man, therefore, who provides such a place does a real service to the community. The object of the waqf is not only definite and philanthropic butt; also charitable "Charity" as popularly defined means any act of kindness and benevolence' especially 'that which is given in benevolence to the poor and. where rich and poor are benefited alike, it cannot be argued that the object is not charitable. 'Love towards our fellow beings' is considered to be the basic principle of charity and that feeling is displayed in abundance in the case of the gift before us.

5. We do not consider that the authorities relied on by the respondent render him any assistance, as they proceeded on their own facts and the objects of the waqf there had been described indifferent terms. In Shahat-ud-din v. Sohan Lal (1907) PR 1907, the bequest was for such charitable objects as the trustees should think proper or for such purposes as may bring eternal bliss for the testator. In Gurdit Singh v. Sher Singh (1912) 78 PR 1912, the object of the trust was 'dharamarth.' Similarly in Ranchhod Das v. Parbati Bai (1899) 23 Bom 725, the bequest was for 'dharam'. In Mariambi v. Patmabai 1929 Bom 127, the bequest was for 'khairat'. In Mahomed Ali v. Lakhmichand 1931 Bind 75, the bequest was for 'khairati' works. These terms were no doubt vague and uncertain, and the 'waqfs' were rightly disallowed; but, the object of the trust before us is as definite and certain as it could be In a much weaker case than this where a dedication of a portion of a man's property had been made for the reading of fatiha and for 'amur-i-khair' (charitable purposes) including the maintenance of poor relations and dependants, it was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabah High Court that the waqf was vali