- (1.) This is an appeal by certain objectors to an application originally filed under Section 7 of Act 14 of 1920. The applicant alleged that Mt. Haji Begam had dedicated certain property and prescribed a certain line of mutwallis and the applicant was the mutwalli of the trust property, lie asked for numerous directions to be given to him by the Court in his administration of the trust property. His main point was that the income of the trust property had been reduced considerably and that there should be proportionate reduction under all heads, lie also wanted a declaration in favour of his sons that they were equally entitled to certain allowances.
(2.) The application was opposed by certain beneficiaries under the deed of trust who denied the pedigree set up by the applicant, denied the fact that the applicant was a trustee, denied that the income had been in any way reduced, denied that the applicant s sons were entitled to any allowances and also denied the jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain the application on the ground inter alia, that the trust was not a public trust at all.
(3.) The learned Judge has disposed of the matter without allowing the parties to produce any evidence and without going into the points which were in controversy. He has not held that the applicant is entitled under the deed of trust to be the mutwalli, but inasmuch as he is in possession of the trust property he has assumed that he is a mutwalli. He has not gone into the question whether the pedigree set up by the applicant or that set up by the objectors was correct, nor has he considered the question whether the income has in point of fact been at all reduced. He has found in favour of the objectors that the wakf was not a public trust, but was a private trust, although part of the income, at any rate, was fixed for religious and charitable purposes. He has not considered whether on that ground the wakf should be considered as partly public and partly private. He has treated the application as if it were not made under Act 14 of 1920, but were a mere petition to him in his capacity as the Judge of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction, who has taken the place of the Qazi under the Mahomedan law, for directions and has considered that he has jurisdiction to give such directions to a trustee. Perhaps, this part of the view taken by him, cannot be seriously challenged.;