Waqf-alal-aulad
Waqf-alal-aulad legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Wakf-alal-aulad-Can be created Ar maintenance and support wholly or partially of family, children or descendants of wakif without allotment of any sum out of income for charitable purpose during their life-Ultimate benefit must be reserved for purpose recognized by Muslim Law though deferred till extinction of family's children and descendants of wakif-Mere provision for sum for public charities without specifying property thereto does not validate wakf to that extent-"Family"-Term comprehensive, may include persons not related to wakif or distant kindred who cannot be called descendants-"Heirs of children" to inherit wakif's property, (provision in wakfnama)-Wakfnama, held, invalid as heirs may include not members of family nor children nor descendants-Mussalman Wakf Validating Act (VI of 1913).
Waqf property not liable to attachment in execution of personal decree against estate of Waqif Mutawalli.
"Waqf-alal-aulad", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21903
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Waqf-alal-aulad"
P L D 1973 Peshawar 80
MUHAMMAD SAERD — Petitioner Versus Syed MUNAWAR SHAH AND 5 OTHERS — Defendants — Respondents
Court:1991CLC398
ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Applicant Versus MAHMOOD and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi2004 Y L R 302
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑ Appellants Versus BAQIR ALI SHAH‑‑‑Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1989 Supreme Court 299
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATION, AUQAF‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL NABI through his Legal Heirs and others‑‑Respondents
Court: (a) West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 M.L.R. 64‑P L D 1957 (W
MUHAMMAD YAQUB‑ — (Decree‑holder) — Appellant Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑ — (judgment‑debtors) — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D (Rev
SHARIF AHMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent
Court:P L D 1959 (W
Haji MIAN MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus TILA MUHAMMAD and others‑Defendants‑Respondents
Court: High Court1991 S C M R 2152
Syed MUHAMMAD ZAMAN SHAH — Appellant Versus THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, LAHORE
Court: ----S. 3---Creation of Waqf---Predecessor-in-interest of Sajjada Nashin dedicated the whole self-acquired property to a Khanka and used to meet his own and his family expenses out of the income of the said property---No evidence nor other material was available to come to the conclusion that the dedicator while creating the Waqf made a dedication in the nature of the Waqf-alal-Aulad --- Receiving and spending of income by Sajjada Nashin had no peculiar features other than that of Sajjada Nashin receiving the income as Sajjada Nashin and not as "any member of the family of the dedicator or his descendants" envisaged in S. 3-- Such income, thus was not as independent owner or beneficiary under the Waqf, but only as a Sajjada Nashin deriving benefit from income like Manager of the dedicated property and no more: --Muhammadan Law.P L D 1982 Peshawar 24
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Petitioner Versus Haji NISAR AHMAD AND 15 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Injunction, temporary‑Main respondent after being ordered to be ejected in ejectment proceedings initiated on application of petitioner, filing a declaratory suit in name of a firm allegedly owned by him and his sons praying for a declaration to be made as to property in question being waqf property and also applying for a temporary injunction to be issued against petitioner Held: Ejectment order against main respondent having become final, such respondent no more concerned with or left any interest in property‑Main respondent not a different person from firm as alleged in plaint but both same and firm introduced merely to frustrate final order of ejectment‑Fact of respondent having not taken plea of firm being real tenant in ejectment proceedings and such proceedings being not competent against him clear pointer to subsequent introduction of firm being a manoeuvre to frustrate ejectment order Firm even if supposed to exist as alleged cannot in circumstances be believed to have been unaware of ejectment proceedings and as such order of ejectment binding on firm as well, hence, no question arose of issuing any injunction against petitioner‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13.‑‑Injunction.1984 S C M R 1427
Mian INAM KARIM and others — Petitioners Versus Mirza ISRAR-UL-QADIR and others — Respondents
Court: ---Art. 185(3)--Mohammedan Law--Wakf Alal-Aulad--Sale of Wakf property--Court to give effect to express wishes of founder so far as possible but can authorise sale of Wakf property for investing proceeds in any shape considered conducive to proper maintenance of wakf even though Wakf had not expressly reserved power of sale--View of High Court not exceptionable--Leave to appeal refused. --Muhammadan Law.