Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

If the gift to charity is residuary upon a void gift, the general rule is that it fails if the Court finds that the precedent gift is of unascertainable amount. But the charitable gift is valid if the subject-matter needed for the precedent gift can be reduced to certainty by means of an inquiry.

The cases on which this statement of the law is based are given in the foot-note. In the present case the residue of the estate was readily ascertainable and the executors were directed to deliver it over to the wakf trustees with all convenient speed. In these circumstances, it cannot in our judgment be said with reason that there was uncertainty with regard to the property dedicated or that the dedication was subject to a contingency. The next question is whether the dedication of that part of the residue which consists of moveable property is unlawful. Before the passing of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, it was the view of this Court and of other High Courts in India, except the Allahabad High Court, that there could not be a valid" dedication to wakf of moveable property, unless it were accessory to land or allowed because of certain traditions concerning the prophet and the secred writings or there was a custom to make wakf of it: see Kadir Ibrahim Rowther v. Mohamed Rahamatulla Rowther (10) 33 Mad. 118. The contesting defendants say that all this has been changed by the Validating Act of 1913 and we consider that there is great force in this argument. A "wakf" is there defined as the permanent dedication of "any property' for any purpose recognised by the Mussalman law as religious, pious or charitable. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been said that as the object of the Act was to make lawful dedications of property for the benefit of the descendants of the creator of the wakf it cannot be taken to alter the law in any other respect. The Court can, however, only have regard to the wording of the sections in the Act when no ambiguity exists. While it is true that the primary object of the Act was that just mentioned it was necessary to define "wakf" and the definition must have general application. There cannot be one definition of wakf when the object falls within the Act and a different definition when it does not. In any event this wakf falls within the Act and we hold that the fact that the property dedicated includes moveable property does not in any way affect its validity.