- (1.) N. N. Mithal, J. These are two ap peals arising out of two different suit in which the plaintiff was the same and a com mon question of law is involved in both of them.
(2.) IN second appeal No. 123 of 1977 facts were that a waqf had been created by Smt. Badrunnisa in 1930. According to the scheme of succession of Mutawalli as laid down in the deed of waqf on the death of the Wakif are Smt. Ejazatunnisa became its Mutwalli. However, she offered to sur render her mutwalliship rights in favour of Shamshad Ahmad and obtained order dated 25th April, 1967 from the District court permitting this change whereafter Sham-shad Ahmad became the mutawalli. On 1-6-1971 he obtained permission from the Dis trict Judge to transfer the disputed waqf property in favour of the plaintiff. Acting upon that permission a sale-deed was ex ecuted on 14th February, 1972. A suit by the waqf was then pending against the defen dant and with the leave of the court the present plaintiff was substituted for the waqf. The defendant contested the ap pointment of Shamshad Ahmad as Mutwal li being opposed to the directions in the waqf deed as also the validity of the transfer in plaintiff's favour as being violative of Sec. 49-A of the amended U. P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960. This suit by the plaintiff was dismissed by the lower appellate court against which he had come up in appeal. In Second Appeal No. 429 of 1979, however, the facts are almost similar, but for minor difference in a few dates and I do not propose to set out the facts again here. The suit has been decreed by the court below and it is the defendant who has come up in ap peal. The very same questions arise in this appeal also i. e. about the validity of Sham-shad Ahmad's appointment and of the sale deed.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 was enacted to regulate and control the working and management of waqfs in U. P. and waqfs of all kinds came under its purview, barring those class of waqfs Alalaulad which were saved by Sec. 2 (3) of the Act. By U. P. Act No. 28 of 1971, which was enforced from 5th Nov. 1971, the Waqf Act was amended whereby this sub-clause (3) was deleted. According to the appellant the amending Act is prospective in operation and does not retrospectively affect those waqfs to which the present Act did not ini tially apply. In support of his submission he placed reliances on (1984) 1 S. C. C. 206 Pun jab Tin Supply Co. v. Central Govt. and others particularly on the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 17 of the report which says that "all laws which affect substantive rights generally operate prospectively and there is a presumption against their retrospectivity if they affect vested rights and obligations unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive. ". He also seeks support from Bimla Devi v. First Addl. District Judge and others (1984) 2 S. C. C. 582, where also it was laid down by the Supreme Court the substantive rights conferred by any law cannot be taken away by an amendment of that provision with retrospective effect.;