- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. The dispute in this second appeal is between the plaintiff-brother and the defendant-sister.
(2.) ACCORDING to the admitted facts, Dr. Maulvi Hazi Habib-ur-Reham Khan Nawab Sarvar Yar Jang Bahadur created a wakf-alal-aulad vide wakf deed dated 24. 5. 45. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 Zia-ur- Rehman Khan Sherwani is the grand son of wakif and is presently Mutwalli of the wakf. The defendant- appellant Smt. Faiqa Khatoon who is his real sister is occupying and living in the part of the wakf property with the permission of the earlier Mutwalli who happened to be their father, late Haji Ubed-ur- Rehman Khan Sherwani. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 instituted original suit no. 1463/94 for the ejectment of defendant/appellant and for possession over the disputed portion of the wakf property on the allegation that she is living therein as a licensee of the wakf which has been revoked. The suit was resisted by the defendant/appellant on the ground that she is one of the beneficiary under the wakf and, as such, cannot be evicted by treating her to be a licensee. The suit was dismissed by the court of first instance. However, on appeal it has been decreed holding that the defendant/appellant is not a beneficiary entitle to right of residence. Thus, the defendant/appellant has come up in this second appeal. In short, according to the plaintiff, the defendant is not a beneficiary under the aforesaid wakf and is not entitle to live in any part of the property of the wakf. On the other hand, the defendant claims herself to be a beneficiary having right of residence in the wakf property from which she cannot be evicted by treating her to be a licensee.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties agreed that the only question of legal substance which is involved in this appeal is whether the defendant/appellant Smt. Faiqa Khatoon who is grand daughter of the wakif is a beneficiary under the wakf deed dated 24. 5. 45 and, as such, is entitled to right of residence in the wakf property. I have heard Sri S. C. Verma, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and Sri M. K. Gupta along with Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma for the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 on the above substantial question of law to which they were put to notice by the court by an order dated 6. 11. 2008 and they have agreed for final decision of the appeal at the stage of admission itself on the aforesaid question.;