Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. The English Law is different as regards trusts for benevolent purposes. In the Chichester Diocesan case, 1944 A. C. 341 the House of Lords refused to extend the exception from the general principle to benevolent trusts because the Court does not know what is benevolent. It is not a term of art & in its ordinary meaning it has a range in some respects far less wide than legal charity & in others somewhat wider. It was conceded in that case that a trust for benevolent purposes is void, Lord Simonds said in the case of William's Trusts, (1947-1 ALL E. R. 513) that a benevolent trust is not the same as a charitable trust. Similarly, a trust for ''public purposes" is void for uncertainty, as observed in the Chinchester Diocesan case by Lord Macmillan, Philanthropic purposes are also wider than charitable purposes & a gift for philanthropic purposes will fail for uncertainty ; Dr. Keeton, at p. 134. All these trusts fail because though they may include charitable purposes, they do not exclude others & the law does not countenance the mixing up of charitable & non-charitable purposes. It does not matter how tbe mixing up is done, whether by using one word which includes charitable & non-charitable purposes such as "benevolent". "publics" etc., or by using two or more words disjunctively, such as "charitable or benevolent", "charitable or public", "charitable or pious", etc. It is needless for me to consider the effect of the use of the conjunctions "or" & "and" because we are not concerned in the present case with any uncertainty caused by the use of two or more words, one suggesting a charitable intention & the other or others, a non-charitable intention. We are concerned here with only one word, namely, "karkher".

33. "Karkher" literally means good deed or purpose ; its meaning is akin to the meaning of the words "benevolent" & "public purpose". It has not come to acquire any technical meaning & is not understood to be synonymous with charitable purposes. The word "khairat" has been interpreted to mean "charity"; but merely because the word "charity" has a technical meaning in the English Law, it cannot be said that "khairat" also has a technical meaning under the Muslim Law. An English Court may have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by "charity" in a will governed by the English Law & in executing a trust for charity simpliciter, but one cannot say that an Indian Ct. also would have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by "khairati" in a will governed by Muslim Law. "Khairat" may be translated as "charity", but it would carry its popular meaning & not the technical meaning. The word "charity" has no technical meaning under the Scottish Law (because the Statute of Elizabeth never applied to Scotland) & on this ground Lord Porter, in the Chichester Diocesan case, 1944 A. c. 341 distinguished Scottish decisions in respect of trusts for charitable or benevolent purposes. Similarly, we must distinguish the English decisions on the point & not blindly hold that waqfs for "khairat" are valid. I consider that but for the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, a waqf for "khairat" or charity simpliciter could have been void for uncertainty. The position since the passing of the Act is, however, different because the Act itself uses the word "charitable" without defining it anywhere. When the Act itself lays down that a waqf can be created for a "charitable" purpose, a waqf made accordingly "for charity" or "for a charitable purpose" cannot be held to be so uncertain as to be void. There would certainly be no greater uncertainty in the waqf than in the Act itself & if the Act permits an uncertain thing to be done, it is not open to the Court to say that the thing done is invalid on account of uncertainty. If a waqf deed recites that it is created in accordance with the Act for a charitable purpose, there is all the greater reason for not ruling it out as invalid.

35. "Karkher" and "Amure kher" are synonymous. In Mukarram Ali's case, (45 ALL. 152) there was a waqf for "amure kher," and in Mohammad Yusuf's case, (1941 ALL. L. J. 269) there was a waqf for "kar kher," without any specification of the purposes and yet both were held to be valid. In the latter case it was observed by Dar J., that it is a question of interpretation in each case in which sense the expression is used in a particular document; if it is possible to construe the word "kar kher" in the narrower sense "charity," the trust would not be void. On the other hand, trusts using the same words were held to be invalid in Mohammad Afzal v. Din. Mohammad, A.I. R. (34) 1947 Lah. 117 and Radhey Shiam v. Radhey Lal, A. I. R. (14) 1927 oudh 213. The words actually used in the waqf in the Lahore case, which was confirmed on appeal by the Judicial Committee under title Beli Ram v. Mohammad Afzal, (A. I. R. (35) 1948 P. c. 168), were "mazhabi aur khairati Ram," and it was only by obiter that Bam Lall J., said at p. 131 that "broadly speaking, if the words kher or kar kher are used, reference is to benevolence and good work and the trust is void for uncertainty."