P LD 1966 W (PLP)

(b) after the death of Haji Karim Dino, his grand‑son Mazhar Ali and Mazhar Ali's wife Mst. Bachal, or a survivor of the two at that time, would be the appropriator and Matwalli of the wakf during their/his/her lifetime. (c) if both the beneficiaries namely, Mazhar Ali and Mst. Bachal were dead at the time of the death of Haji Karim Dino Usto, Mst. Nawab Bibi (the donor's daughter from Mst. Razul) would be the appropriator and Matwalli of the said property for her lifetime; (d) if Mazhar Ali or Mst. Bachal or anyone of the survivors of the two leave behind any "Aulad" male or female they or their `Aulad' would remain as appropriators and Matwallis from generation to generation jointly and severally.‑ (e) Mazhar Ali and/or Mst. Bachal would be entitled to appoint anyone as Matwalli; and (f) but in the event of his (donor's) lineage becoming extinct, the entire property mentioned in the Wakf deed would be utilized for religious and charitable purposes. Haji Karim Dino Usto died in 1924. At that time, Mazhar Ali and his wife Mst. Bachal were both alive. They, therefore, became the Matwallis. Mazhar Ali died in 1948 and Mst. Bachal thus became the Matwalli. Mst. Bachal died issueless in 1950 and in the absence of the children of Mazhar Ali or Mst. Bachal, Abdul Nabi has been looking after the property since then. Abdul Nabi, Haji Abdul Majid, Mst. Tajul Bibi, Mst. Majul Bibi and also Abdul Fateh filed Forms LC‑I and LC‑II. The latter claimed to be the second husband of Mst. Bachal. The Deputy Land Commissioner apportioned the property among the heirs of Mazhar Ali and Mst. Bachal. Appeals were filed before the Land Commissioner who held that none of the petitioners was entitled to get any share in the property and he ordered that the entire property should go to charity. Hence these six revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In such cases there are two stages. The first is to determine who were the beneficiaries on the 7th February 1959. The second is to sub‑divide the beneficiaries in heirs and non‑heirs. Non‑heirs are then to get their shares according to the reservation made in the Wakf deed and heirs according to the shares as if the succession opened at the time of the death of the donor which happened in 1924 in this case. So far as determination of this first question is concerned, the relevant clauses are (d) and (f). The learned counsel for Abdul Majid and Mst. Shah Jahan contended that the lineage mentioned in clause (f) is not the lineage of Haji Karim Dino Usto. According to him so long as there is any Aulad of Haji Karim Dino Usto, the property cannot revert to charity. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that clauses (d) and (f) have to be read together, (f) is only an alternative in case the contingency contemplated by clause (d) does not materialise. If the contention of the learned counsel for Abdul Majid was to be accepted the position will be anomalous. Clause (d) will cease to operate after Mazhar Ali and Mst. Bachal died issueless the property will revert to charity. In these circumstances, the interpretation given by the learned Land Commissioner is absolutely correct. In view of the findings given above the question as to what benefits would be derived by the beneficiaries does not arise and I will not go into this question. The revisions filed by Abdul Nabi, Abdul Majid and Mst. Shahul alias Shah Jehan therefore, fail and are rejected hereby. Haji Karim Dino Usto created another wakf on the 20th October 1920, for the benefits of the children and grand‑children of his second wife Mst. Rehmat. The important features of this wakf are as under:‑

(a) The donor would be the sole Matwalli and beneficiary of the property during his lifetime. (b) Abdul Nabi, the donor's son, would be owner and appropriator of the property after the donor's death. (c) Abdul Nabi would look after and maintain his two unmarried sisters and would spend Rs. 5,000 on their marriage from the cash balance left by the donor. (d) Abdul Nabi would be the appropriator of the property like the donor. (e) The property would go to charity, if Abdul Nabi leaves behind no "Aulad" and his heirs become extinct. (f) Rs. 1,000 would be paid in charity annually. After the scrutiny of the Forms LC‑I and LC‑II the Deputy Land Commissioner ordered that Abdul Nabi, Mst. Tajul Bibi and Mst. Majul Bibi will be three beneficiaries and the property will be divided among them according to the Law of Inheritance. Abdul Fateh and his brother Muhammad Bahksh went in appeal but the Land Commissioner upheld the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner. Hence the revision before me. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant clause so far as Mst. Tajul Bibi and Mst. Majul Bibi are concerned is (c). According to this Abdul Nabi was to look after his unmarried sisters. Since these two sisters got married the question of their maintenance after marriage by Abdul Nabi did not arise. These revisions are rejected. According to clause (d) Abdul Nabi .was the sole appropriator of the property like the donor. In these circumstances the two sisters of Abdul Nabi, Mst. Tajul Bibi and Mst. Majul Bibi cannot claim to be the beneficiaries under this wakf. Abdul Nabi would be the sole beneficiary under this wakf and the property will be dealt with accordingly. S.Q Revisions rejected.