| Headnote |
Trust Property—Wakf and Public Charitable Trust— Distinction—Rule of interpretation of documents—The Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954), SS.. 3(1), 9, 28—Hyderabad Endowment Regulation, 1348-F (1989).The appellants were appointed trustees by the Nizam of Hyderabad by a trust deed executed on June 14, 1954. On March 2, 1959, respondent No. 1, who was the Director of Endowments and Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, served a notice on the appellants calling upon them to register the said trust under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulation, 1348-F (1939) and to render accounts of the same. The appellants contended that the trust was not governed by the said Regulation. Thereupon the first respondent sealed the pay office of the said trust. Although the seal was subsequently removed by an order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the appellants were asked to produce their books of account and not to operate upon the banks in which the money of the trust was deposited, and also not to spend any amount till further orders. Appellants 1 to 3 filed a writ petition in the High Court and prayed for a writ of prohibition and certiorari. The fourth appellant was subsequently appointed an additional trustee and added as a petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court which held that s. 6 of Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, did not apply, and the Hyderabad Endowment Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder could not be said to have been repealed. It also held that the Regulation and the Rules did not contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14,19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. The appellants came to this Court by special leave. While the appeal was pending in this Court, the Muslim Wakf Board, Hyderabad, constituted under s.9 of the Wakf Act, 1954, wrote to the Secretary of the trust that the trust was a Wakf within the meaning of the Wakf Act, and steps should be taken for its registration under s, 28 of the Act. When the order was not complied with in spite of reminders, the Board itself caused the registration of the trust to be made. When the registration was published, respondent No. 2 moved the High Court for quashing the registration of the trust on the ground that the trust was not a Wakf and the provisions of the Wakf Act did not apply to it. Under these circumstances, the Wakf Board was also made a party in this Court. But the parties agreed that if the trust was held to be a wakf within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act and its registration under s. 28 was found to be valid, the impugned Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder would be inapplicable to the trust and the appeal would have to be allowed; on the other hand, if it was held that the trust was not a Wakf and the provisions of the Wakf Act were not applicable to it, its registration under s. 28 would be invalid. Held, that the trust created is not a Wakf but a secular public charitable trust. The Wakf Act, 1954, does not apply to it, and its registration under s. 28 is invalid and inoperative. The whole scheme of the trust deed vests the title in the trustees and gives them absolute discretion to use the said property and its income for any of the charitable purposes specified in the document. The dominant intention of the settlor in creating the trust was to help public charity in the best sense of the words, ‘public charity’ not confined to any caste, religion or creed. This is inconsistent with the concept of a Wakf. The appointment of non-Muslims as trustees is indicative of the fact that a Wakf was not intended. The document calls the author of the trust the settlor and the appellants trustees and that introduces the concept of the trust as contemplated by English Law, and that is against the concept of a Wakf. It is an elementary rule of construction that if two constructions are reasonably possible, the one which gives effect to all the clauses of the document must be preferred to that which defeats some of its clauses. |
