Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad), officially reported as 2026 LHC 2132. In this matter between GOVT BOYS HIGH SCHOOL ETC and SARDAR FAROOQ AHMAD KHAN LAGHARI ETC, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad) DECISION DATE: 02-04-2026 TAGLINE: Principles governing the Waqf explained. CASE DETAILS: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)-Declaration 482-17 ============================================================ Stereo.HCJDA 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT ….

Civil Revision No.482 of 2017.

Government Boys City High School Jampur, etc.

Versus

Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Laghari (deceased) through LRs, etc.

J U D G M E N T.

Date of hearing: 09.03.2026.

Petitioners by: M/s Mahar Irshad Ahmad Arain and Nasir Hussain Balouch, Advocates. Kanwar Sajid Ali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Respondents by: M/s Anwar Mubeen Ansari, Fayyaz Hussain Laghari, Muhammad Ameer Amjad Khan Pitafi, Advocates.

AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, J. Through this Civil Revision filed u/s 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , the petitioners have called into question validity and legality of order dated 10.01.2017 pursuant whereto their application for setting-aside judgment and decree dated 28.02.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.39/1991 titled as " Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Laghari, etc. V. Ghazali Raheem Khan, etc." was dismissed. 2. Tersely, the facts forming background of the proc eedings in hand are that respondents No.1 and 2 instituted a suit for declaration, C.R. No.482 of 2017. 2 rendition of accounts, etc. against the respondents No.3 to 20 by contending therein that they are the descendants (grandsons) of the Waqif, namely Nawab Sardar Muhammad Jam al Khan , who was a pious and religious person, Chief and Tuman-dar of the Laghari Tribe, and was deeply committed to the welfare of the Muslim community. With the said object, he dedicated his property measuring 84 Kanals & 12 Marlas situated in Mouza Basti Rindan, Tehsil Jampur, District Rajanpur, for Islamic purposes, including establishment of a school, boarding house, and other religious uses; that the said dedication was duly recorded through Mutation No.328 dated 10.04.1923 , wherein the terms and conditions of the Waqf were incorporated, to the effect that the property and its produce shall always be utilized for Islamic purposes; that a Mutawalli shall manage the same; that the Mutawalli shall not have the power to sell, mortgage, gift, or otherwise a lienate the Waqf property ; and that after the death of the Mutawalli, the Waqif or his successors shall appoint a new Mutawalli; that initially, Sardar Ahmad Khan Pata fi was appointed as the first Mutawalli by the Waqif, who was entrusted with the administ ration of the Waqf property in accordance with the terms of the Waqf; that subsequently, the said Mutawalli, Ahmad Khan Patafi, also dedicated certain of his own land measuring 73 Kanals & 16 Marlas for the same Islamic purposes through Mutation No.9 25 dat ed 22.05.1933, thereby merging the income and man agement of both Waqf properties; that after the death of Nawab Sardar Muhammad Jamal Khan in the year 1961, and during the lifetime of Ahmad Khan Pata fi, the C.R. No.482 of 2017. 3 administration of the Waqf continued; however, Ahmad Khan Patafi, in violation of the conditions of the Waqf and without lawful authority, executed a self -styled document in shape of will on 20.02.1961, appointing his nephew, Sardar Abdul Rahim Khan, as Mutawalli, which appointment is illegal, void, and against the terms of the Waqf; that said Sardar Abdul Rahim Khan, without any lawful authority, transferred a portion of the Waqf property measuring approximately 59 Kanals 06 Marlas in favour of defendants No.1 and 20, namely Ghazali Rahim Khan and Ghazali Cotton Industries, through document No.120 dated 10.09.1973, for industrial purposes, which is in clear violation of the terms of the Waqf and thus void, illegal, and ineffective; t hat the said defendants, on the basis of the aforesaid illegal transfer, have taken possession of the Waqf property and established an industrial unit thereupon, which act is unlawful and contrary to the purpose of the Waqf; that after the death of the original Mutawalli, Ahmad Khan Patafi, the revenue authorities, without lawful basis, entered the names of his heirs as Mutawallis in the revenue record, although the office of Mutawalli is not hereditary and cannot devolve through inheritance, but is to be filled strictly in accordance with the conditions of the Waqf; that the ap pointment of Sardar Abdul Rahim Khan as Mutawalli, as well as the subsequent entries of defendants as Mutawallis in the revenue record, are illegal, without jurisdiction, against the conditions of the Waqf , and thus void and ineffective; t hat plaintiff No. 1, being the grandson of the Waqif and the recognized Chief and Tuman-dar of the Laghari tribe, C.R. No.482 of 2017. 4 has been duly acknowledged by the tribe and family as their head and Mutawalli of the Waqf property, and is thus legally entitled to be declared as such; t hat the defendants have failed to maintain proper accounts of the income derived from the Waqf property and have misappropriated the same for their personal use, despite the fact that Waqf property and its income are sacred trusts meant solely for religious and charitable purpose s; t hat the plaintiffs have serious apprehension that substantial income of the Waqf property has been embezzled by the defendants, and no record or register of accounts has been maintained; t hat the defendants are illegally claiming to have transferred portions of the Waqf property to third parties, although no such valid entries exist in the revenue record; and even otherwise, any such transfer would be void being contrary to the Waqf. The respondent No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs made the followi ng prayers through their suit:- In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously pass a decree for declaration and other consequential reliefs in the following terms: i. It may be decl ared that the property described above is a Waqf property dedicated for Islamic purposes, for an Islamic school, boarding house, and other allied religious purposes; and that defendants No.1 to 20 are not the Mutawallis of the said Waqf property , nor do th ey have any right of possession, management, control, or administration thereof, their claim being illegal, void, and of no legal effect. It may further be C.R. No.482 of 2017. 5 declared that, in accordance with the conditions of the Waqf, a permanent Mutawalli be appointed, and that plaintiff No.1, being the Chief of the Laghari tribe, Tuman-dar, and duly recognized and selected head of the tribe and family, be declared as the lawful Mutawalli, entitled to manage, control, possess, and administer the said Waqf property. ii. It may further be declared that the transfer of property mentioned in Schedule “B” effected by Sardar Abdul Rahim Khan in favour of defendants No.1 & 20 for industrial purposes is illegal, without lawful authority, fraudulent, against facts, and in violation of t he conditions of the Waqf; hence, the same is void, ineffective, and not binding upon the Waqf property, which shall continue to be treated as Waqf property. iii. It is further prayed that a decree for rendition of accounts be passed against the defendants, directing them to render true and proper accounts of all income derived from the Waqf property and to disclose and pay all amounts received by them therefrom. iv. It is also prayed that a proper and regular scheme for the administration of the Waqf be framed and enforced strictly in accordance with the conditions of the Waqf. v. Any other relief, including alternative or additional relief, which this Honourable Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted. C.R. No.482 of 2017. 6 3. During the pendency o f the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment in the plaint on 27.02.1996 wherein they sought an amendment to the effect that due to violation of terms and conditions of Waqf, they have become owner of the Waqf property. Without getting any permission from the Court, they filed amended plaint wherein following relief was sought: It is further prayed that it be declared that, on account of violation of the conditions of the Waqf, they had become owner of the suit property. 4. Although, the suit was resisted by the defendants in pursuance of which learned Trial Court framed issues on 13.10.1992 and invited the parties to lead their respective evidence, yet on 27.02.1996 a compromise was filed by the parties which was produced on the record as E xh.C.I according to which it was settled between the parties that the defendants have no objection if a decree for declaration qua property measuring 84 Kanals & 04 Marlas (detailed in the application) in favour of the plaintiffs may be passed and similarly it was agreed that the defendants No.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 20 shall remain in possession of land measuring 59 Kanals & 04 Marlas detailed in the application (Exh.C.I). Learned Trial Court decreed the suit in the light of said compromise deed (Exh.C.I) vide ju dgment and decree dated 28.02.1996. 5. On 19.03.2015, the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the above-referred judgment and decree dated 28.02.1996 C.R. No.482 of 2017. 7 contending therein that Government Boys City High School, Jampur is a well -known education al institution imparting education since long, and that land measuring 84 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in Mouza Basti Rindan, Tehsil Jampur, was sanctioned in its favour vide Mutation No.328 dated 10.04.1923, thereby conferring upon the school a distinct legal status. It was averred that petitioner No.1 is the serving Headmaster, while petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are retired Headmasters of the said institution, and they are directly affected by the impugned judgment and decree, as the school has been functioning on the disputed property with a large number of students. It was further contended that the predecessors -in-interest of respondents No.1 ( Alif to Ray), namely Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Laghari, along with respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 Jafar Khan Laghari, in stituted a suit for declaration without impleading the petitioners as necessary parties, despite the existence of the school on the disputed property, and obtained the impugned decree behind their back, thereby condemning them unheard. It was alleged that the respondents concealed material facts from the Court and, in connivance with each other, got the disputed property partitioned and settled in their names during the proceedings, depriving the petitioners of their valuable rights. It was also asserted th at in Khata No.945/897, Khasra No.212/05/1 measuring 15 Marlas, a mosque exists, while an area measuring 9 Kanals 9 Marlas is recorded as Ghair Mumkin, and the school is situated over Khasra Nos.210/20 -1/2, 21-2, 211, 16-3-5, and 25-2, comprising the total land, and has been C.R. No.482 of 2017. 8 in existence since prior to partition. The petitioners claimed that they came to know about the impugned judgment and decree only 4/5 months prior to filing of the application, and after obtaining certified copies, filed the petition within limitation. 6. Learned Trial Court, after getting reply from the other side and hearing arguments, dismissed the said application vide order dated 10.01.2017. Hence, this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has been observed that t he pivotal question requiring determination by this Court is whether the judgment and decree dated 28. 02.1996, passed on the basis of compromise, can sustain in the eyes of law when a necessary and proper party was not impleaded and the nature of the property involved was admittedly Waqf. 9. It is evident from the record that predecessor of the plaintiffs namely Khan Bahadur Sardar Jamal Khan Laghari through mutation No.328 dated 10.04.1923 dedicated his land measuring 84 Kanals 12 Marlas as Waqf for Islamic purpose. It is specifically mentioned in the mutation that:- "شرا۔زببانی دوست محمد خان مشیر مال۔ خان بہادر سردار جمال خان واہ ب نے آراضی مندرجہ انتقال ہذا اغراض اسلامی ے واطے وف ردد ے اور وف کا متولی احمد خان پتافی ے ۔ جبب تت سکول اسلامی ب ا بورڈنگ ب ا دیگر اراضی اسلامی موجود رہیں گے آراضی کو ب ا آراضی ہذا کی پید چ گ اوار کو اغراض اسلامی یں ر C.R. No.482 of 2017. 9 کیا جائے گا۔ بعد وفات متولی منتظمان اغراض اسلامی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ خان بہادر سردار جمال خان ب ا ان ے وارب ای ن اگنان متولی ن جاشگ مقرر ردیں۔ اگر کسی وجہ سے اغراض اسلامی نہ رہیں ب ا مدرسہ و بورڈنگ شکست رد جائے تو خان بہادر موصوف واہ ب ب ا ان ے وارب ان و جانشین مجاز ہونگے کہ آراضی کی ملکیت اپنے بگام منتقل ردالیویں۔ نیز متولیان کو بیع و رہن ہبہ وغیرہ منتقل ردنے آراضی ے اختیار نہ ہوگا۔" 10. Ahmad Khan Pattafi through mutation No.925 dated 22.05.1933 gifted/Waqf his land measuring 73 Kanals 16 Marlas to Islamic Madrassa Anjuman Islamia Jampur. Said Ahmad Khan Pattafi further gifted/ Waqf land measuring 45 Kanals & 19 Marlas through mutation No.2721 dated 31.10.1960 to Tanzeem Ahl -e- Sunnat Waljamat Jampur. 11. From the record as well as the plead ings, it transpires that Government Boys City High School, Jampur has been functioning at the disputed site and the very case of the plaintiffs in the original suit was that the property in question was Waqf property dedicated, inter alia, for an Islamic s chool/Islamic Purpose. Mutation No.328 also reflects that gift/Waqf was made in favour of Islamia School Jampur. Whereas, Ahmad Khan Pattafi through mutation No.925 gifted/ Waqf his property to Islamic Madrassa Anjuman Islamia Jampur and through mutation No .2721 to Tanzeem Ahl-e-Sunnat Waljamat Jampur. Thus, the school as well as Islamic Madrassa-e-Anjuman Islamia and Tanzeem Ahl-e-Sunnat Waljamat Jampur were not only proper parties but necessary parties to the lis. Any adjudication affecting such property, without impleading the said parties and the institutions which were established upon it, is patently violative of the principles of natural justice. It is by now well -settled that no person can be condemned unheard. The non -impleadment of a C.R. No.482 of 2017. 10 necessary part y renders the proceedings defective, and any decree passed in such circumstances is not binding upon such party. In the present case, the school, being directly affected, was never arrayed as a party; hence, the decree dated 28.02.1996 cannot be enforced against it. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioners lack locus standi to institute the present application for setting aside the judgment and decree, on the ground that they are neither nece ssary nor proper parties to the proceedings. The contention, however, cannot be accepted. It is well- settled that where the functionaries entrusted with the management, protection, and preservation of Waqf property themselves act in contravention of law wi th an intent to misappropriate or divert the said property, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of any person interested in the lawful administration of such property to bring the matter to the attention of the Court. Admittedly, the land in question has been dedicated as Waqf for the purpose of imparting education to Muslims and for dissemination of Islamic teachings. In such circumstances, every member of the Muslim community, being a beneficiary of the Waqf, acquires a sufficient interest in the proper administration and safeguarding of the Waqf property. Consequently, any misuse, mismanagement, or diversion of the Waqf property from the object of its dedication confers locus standi upon such beneficiaries to approach the Court for appropriate relief. Guidance in this regard is sought from a judgment of Division Bench of this C.R. No.482 of 2017. 11 Court in a case titled "Maulana Maqsood Anwar V. Chief Administrator Auqaf and others" (2003 YLR 3078) , wherein the Court observed as under:- "Even otherwise, where the ve ry functionaries deputed for protecting and preserving Waqf properties themselves indulge in illegalities with the object of misappropriating such properties, it is the right, indeed, duty of a citizen to challenge such misappropriation. Finally, it is wor th-mentioning that the aforesaid land was dedicated for the education of Muslims and for imparting Islamic instructions to them and was known as Daaras Mian Wadda Sahib. In this view of the matter, every Muslim was a beneficiary of the Waqf and was therefo re, vested with locus standi to file a petition where the Waqf property was being misappropriated or used in contravention of the objects of the Waqf." 13. The contention of limitation raised by the respondents is also without substance. Since the petitio ners were not parties to the original proceedings, no limitation would run against them. The right to challenge such a decree accrues from the date of knowledge. The petitioners have specifically averred that they came to know about the impugned judgment and decree only a few months prior to filing the application and thereafter promptly approached the Court. Thus, the application was prima-facie within limitation. However, without framing of issue with regard to the point of limitation and recording of evidence, as it is a mixed question of fact & law, the Court was not justified to declare the petitioners’ application barred by time. 14. Another significant aspect of the case is that the original suit was primarily with respect to Waqf property. The plain tiffs initially in their plaint filed on 16.07.1991 had themselves prayed for declaration of the property as Waqf, appointment of Mutawalli, rendition of accounts, and framing of a scheme for administration. C.R. No.482 of 2017. 12 For better understanding, the prayer clause is r eproduced in verbatim as under:- i. "یہ کہ جائیداد وف شده مندرجہ ببالا وف شدہ اسلامیہ ببچائے اسکول اسلامی بورڈنگ ہاؤس و دیگر متعلقہ مگچارع اسلامی کیلئے وف شدہ ے ۔ مدعا علیہم وف شدہ مذکورہ ببالا ے متولیان نہیں ہیں۔ اور نہ ہی ان کو جائیداد مندرجہ ببالا ے قبضہ ب ا انتظام و انصرام کا حق حاصل نہ ے ۔ کاعدمم ے شرائط ببالا ے مطابق ضرور ے کہ جائیداد وف شد مذکورہ کا مستقل متولی حسب شرائط واف چماب ا گ بگامہ اغراض وف شدہ ے مطابق مقرر ف جاوے۔ جس کا مدعی نمبر 1 چیف بحیثیت (Chief) لغار قبیلہ اور تمن دار ے ۔ اور اپنی قوم لغار کا منتخب شدہ متولی اور سر ببچ اہ ے ۔ اور جائیداد وف شدہ مذ کورہ ے انتظام وانصرام، تصرف اور قبضہ کا مجاز ے ۔ ii. نیز منتقلی جائیداد مندرجہ شیڈول "ب" منجانگب سردار عبدالرحیم خان نیز و 1 ،02 جبمله از وف شده پسر خود بغرض انگ ڈسٹرب گچ منگ ئید اد غلط اور خلاف واقعات، سازشی بدوں اختیا گچ ے ۔ اور رات و بگاجابچائض گ فچ

و حقوق جائیداد وف شدہ ے سلسلے یں کاعدمم اور غیر مؤب ہیں۔ جائیداد مذکورہ ببالا بدستور وف شدہ کا حصہ ے ۔ iii. نیز جائیداد وف شدہ مذکورہ کی آ و رقوم کا ازاں مدعا علیہم ببا قاعدہ حساب کتاب کیا جاوے۔ rendition of Accounts اورم رقوم وصول شدہ کی ازاں مدعا علیہم فہمید ردائی جاوے۔ iv. نیز وف شدہ ہذامطابق سلسلے یں ات بباقاعدہ سکیم جو شر ائط وف ے مطابق ہو مرنتب اور چمائی جاوے۔ گ بگافذ ف v. چ گ چین انصاف ہو تو وہ بھی صادر ف ت نیز دیگر دادرسی مگچن ڈ ب ا متبادل جو حالات مقدمہ یں ف جاوے۔" 15. However, subsequently on 27.02.1996 through amendment they sought another prayer that due to violation of Waqf they had become owner of the Waqf property. There said prayer is reproduced hereunder: "نیز ی ه که مدعیان مالک و قابض اراضی مندرجبه ببا تفصیل بباجبه خلاف ورز شرائط وف ن کے ہیں۔" 16. On the same day i.e. 27.02.1996 both the parties filed another application in shape of compromise deed. Both the applications were C.R. No.482 of 2017. 13 allowed on the very next date i.e. 28.02.1996, h owever, instead of adjudicating upon material issues, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit merely on the basis of compromise and proceeded to distribute the property between the parties in an arbitrary and fanciful manner. The parties to the suit, in their compromise narrated as under:- "راضی بگایہ کہ مقدمہ چیقین بشرائط ذیل راضی بگامہ ہوچکا ے ۔ گ عنوان ببالا یں مابین ف ۱۔ یہ کہ اراضی متدعویہ یں سے رقبہ : نمبر کھاتہ نمبر خسرہ رقبہ K-M ضعمو 466/554 نمبر بعمر026 1891-99 5/1 0/5 5/4 0/15

6-22 14-3 11-1 11-1 بستی رندان تحصیل جام پور مربع نمبر021 0/4 22-4 نمبر بعمر029 1/9 8 12 1/11 0/11 5/11 10 26-1 22-9 22-9 26-4 25-2 20-22 26-4

نمبر تہکھا554/466 بعمر029 0/14 0/11 0/19 6/18 22-0 22-6 24-3 22-3 C.R. No.482 of 2017. 14 0/03 3/03 0/00 1/06 04 26-2 11-0 21-0 22-6 28-1

نمبر بعمر012 6 18 02 1/0/02م 22-6 22-6 22-0 20-0 نمبر بعمر010 0/5 3/5 6/5 5/5 4/5 12-2 11-1 11-1 21-1 16-2 میزان 6-96 بحق مدعیان ببچخلاف مدعاعلیہم ڈگر استقرار حق ملکیت مدعیان صادر اعتراض مدعا علیہم کو نہ ے ۔ 0۔ یہ کہ اراضی یں سے ر58 کنال6 مرلہ (غزالی انگ ڈسٹرب گچ نمبر کھاتہ نمبر خسرہ رقبہ K-M 461 نمبر بعمر029 جبمعنباگدڈ99-1891 0/00 0/03 0/06 0/1 0 3 9 16-1 22-6 22-6 22-1 19-1 22-9 22-4 C.R. No.482 of 2017. 15 8 0/12 11 10

22-9 19-3 16-4 22-9 بدستور1،3،6،5،4،02 ے مالک، قابض رہیں گے جس پر مدعیان کا کوئی اعتراض نہ ے اور اس اراضی سے مدعیان کا کوئی تعلق ب ا واسطہ نہ ہوگا۔ بقیہ اراضی کی حد تت اندراجات کاغذات محال بدستور رہیں گے۔ مگچن ڈ یہ کہ دیگر عذرات، استدعا کی حد تت دعو ٰ چیقین ہوگا۔ گ چچہ مقدمہ نبگڈمہ ف گ مدعیان خارج تصور ہوئے۔ ر استدعا ے کہ بمطابق راضی بگامہ ہذا کا فیصلہچماب ا جاوے اور راضی بگامہ ہذا کو ربگچو گ ف ڈگر تصور چماب ا جاوے۔ گ ف" 17. The learned Trial Court in the light of said compromise application passed the judgment dated 28.02.1996 in the following manner: "A question arose whether a dedication in the name of Al mighty Allah could be terminated. In this regard, the learned counsel for the parties have referred to section 462 of the Muhammadan Law wherein it has been held that Imam Abu Hanif a has held that the ownership of Wakf property continues in the Wakif and o n the death of the Wakif devolves on his heirs. His view is that the Wakif remains the bare owner of the corpus or rather of the husk of the property of which the benefit is entirely devoted and dedicated to the beneficiaries or objects of the Wakf. This v iew is not ill ogical. It proceeds on the basis that only the right to recurring produce or usufruct has been disposed of, and the rest remains where it was: the distinction between corpus and produced being always kept in mind. In view of this finding sinc e the mutation by which the disputed property wa s dedicated for creation of an Islamic Wakf bearing No.328 dated 10.4.1923 indicates that the produce of this land was to be spent for the purpose of this Wakf and if the conditions in which this wakf was created do not exist, the suit property shall revert to the wakif or his legal heirs. In this view of the matter, I accept this compromise deed Ex.C.I and decree the suit in terms of this compromise. This compromise deed Ex.C.I. which is signed by the undersigned shall remain a pa rt of the decree sheet. File of this suit shall be consigned to record." 18. The compromise (Exh.C.I), on the basis of which the decree was passed, itself appears to be contrary to law, as parties to a suit C.R. No.482 of 2017. 16 cannot, through a compromis e, validate an act which is otherwise illegal or prohibited by law. A Waqf property cannot be partitioned or appropriated through a private arrangement between individuals. 19. The plaint reflects that the plaintiffs themselves sought declaration to the ef fect that the Court may be declared that the property was a Waqf property dedicated for an Islamic School and the defendants No.1 to 20 are not the Mutwallis and prayed for appointment of permanent Mutwalli, They also sought declaration that the transfer o f property in favour of defendants No.1 & 20 be declared illegal and without lawful authority. They sought rendition of accounts. Through amendment, although, they sought that due to violation of the conditions of Waqf they had become owner of the suit property. But the Court could not grant said declarations without recording evidence of the parties. 20. Such an approach is wholly alien to the settled principles governing Waqf. According to the authoritative exposition of law by D.F. Mulla in Principles o f Mohammedan Law, once a Waqf is validly created, it becomes permanent, irrevocable, and inalienable. The ownership of the property vests in Almighty Allah, and neither the founder nor his heirs retain any proprietary interest therein. The property cannot be partitioned, alienated, or otherwise dealt with in a manner inconsistent with the object of the Waqf. 21. According to Muhammadan Law, a Waqf is a permanent dedication of property by a Muslim for the purposes recognized by C.R. No.482 of 2017. 17 the Muslim Law as religious, pious or charitable. The property dedicated is transferred to the name of Allah Almighty, and the dedicator immediately losses his title in the said property. The object of Waqf must be religious, pious and charitable. A Waqf once made cannot be revoked, u…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad)
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant