Law and Economic Efficiency: English Private Property Law and Muslim Family Endowments (awqāf) in British India

The East India Company's Land Policy and Commerce in Bengal, 1698-1784 (Asiatic Society of Pakistan 1964) 95. Al-tamghā and in‘ām grants were also given to officials. Habib (n 31) 358.

35^ AM Waheeduzzaman, Land Resumption in Bengal, 1819-1846 (PhD Thesis, University of London 1969) 14, 17. A separate department regulated and controlled these grants under the Mughal Empire. I. Habib (n 31) 343, 359 (waqf a separate category of grant in favour of institutions).

36^ GK Dandekar, The Law of Land Tenures (N. M. Tripathi 1912) 95-96.

37^ Waheeduzzaman (n 35) 14.

38^ WW Hunter, The Indian Musalmans (3rd edn Trübner and Co. 1876) 185. Another writer describes the proportion of rent-free lands as two-thirds. JH Harington, An Elementary Analysis of the Laws and Regulations enacted by the Governor General in Council at Fort William in Bengal (2 of 6 vols, The Honorable Company's Press 1814-15) 82.

39^ In one case it was held that a settlement in which no religious purpose at all was expressed was not a valid waqf. This was a case of in‘ām grant dated 1651-52 conferred on a pious person and his children for praying for the perpetuity of the government of Shah Jahan. Mahamed Ali v Sayad Gohar Ali [1882] 6 ILR Bom 88.

40^ The Waqf Act 1954 acknowledged a grant as a valid category of waqf though neither the Wakf Act 1923 nor the Waqf Acts in Bengal, United Provinces and Bombay accepted a grant as a valid waqf.

41^ Waqf by user was accepted as a valid category under the Bengal Wakf Act 1934 and the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act 1936.

42^ The graveyard is a waqf by user. The Court of Wards for the Property of Makhdum Hassan Bakhsh v Ilahi Bakhsh (Lahore) [1912] UKPC 88.

43^ Bibi Aesha v Mohammad Abdul Kabir (Patna) [1931] UKPC 41.

44^ Sheik Mahomed Ahsanulla Chowdhry v Amarchand Kundu (Bengal) [1889] UKPC 56, 17 IA 28; Maharajah Sir Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan v Musammat Bismillah Begam (Lucknow) [1930] UKPC 76.

45^ Jewun Doss Sahoo v Shah Kubeer-ood-Deen (Bengal) [1840] UKPC 20, 2 MIA 390; Syed Mahammed Mazaffar-Al-Musavi v Bibi Jabeda Khatun (Bengal) [1930] UKPC 1; Muhammad Raza v Syed Yadgar Hussain (Nagpur) [1924] UKPC 7; Sardar Abdul Rahman Khan v Sardar Mohammad Ashraf Khan (North West Frontier) [1943] UKPC 53.

46^ East India (Statistical Abstract) from 1897-98 to 1906-07 (Wyman and Sons Ltd 1908) 1.

47^ Kozlowski, Muslim Endowments (n 4) 42. Kozlowski has rightly noticed that in a large number of cases from the Punjab, the public waqf did not involve private interests. Thus we have the highest number of pure public awqāf in the Punjab.

48^ ML Darling, The Punjab Peasant in Prosperity and Debt (4th edn, Manohar Book Service 1977) 5-6 and 19-20.

49^ Ibid 277.

50^ The Imperial Gazetteer of India, vol 4 (Clarendon Press 1909) 204-41. For details see BH Baden-Powell, The Land-Systems of British India (3 vols, Clarendon Press 1892); BH Baden-Powell, A Manual of the Land Revenue Systems and Land Tenure of British India (Office of the Suprintendent of Government Printing 1882) especially Book I, 3-106. For a shorter version see BH Baden-Powell, A Short Account of the Land Revenue and its Administration in British India; with a Sketch of the Land Tenures (2nd edn, Clarendon Press 1907).

51^ Khajeh Soleman v Nawab Salimullah Bahadur (Bengal) [1922] UKPC 23, 49 IA 153; and Hafiz Mohammed Fateh v Sir Swarup Chand Hukum Chand a firm (Bengal) [1947] UKPC 84, AIR 1948 PC 76.

52^ Khajeh Soleman v Nawab Salimullah Bahadur (Bengal) [1922] UKPC 23, 49 IA 153; Nawab Khajeh Habibullah Saheb v Raja Janaki Nath Roy (Bengal) [1929] UKPC 98.

53^ Hafiz Mohammed Fateh v Sir Swarup Chand Hukum Chand a firm (Bengal) [1947] UKPC 84, AIR 1948 PC 76.

54^ Sheik Mahomed Ahsanulla Chowdhry v Amarchand Kundu (Bengal) [1889] UKPC 56, 17 IA 28.

55^ Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak v Russomoy Dhur Chowdhry (Bengal) [1894] UKPC 64, 22 IA 76.

56^ Hafiz Mohammed Fateh v Sir Swarup Chand Hukum Chand a firm (Bengal) [1947] UKPC 84, AIR 1948 PC 76.

57^ Imber (n 1) 141-42.

58^ The Company acquired revenue collection rights as a dīwān and the supervision of civil and criminal justice remained with the Nawab. BB Misra, The Central Administration of the East India Company, 1773-1834 (Manchester University Press 1959) 108-10.

59^ In one case it was held that ‘[n]o documentary evidence was shown to prove that the waqf was validly established. Such an establishment was not satisfactorily proved.’ Therefore, the waqf was declared invalid. Bindersoondree Dassea v Mehroonissa Khatoon [1853] SDA 69. See Waheeduzzaman (n 45); Kozlowski, Muslim Endowments (n 4) 39-40.

60^ Hunter (n 38) 185.

61^ Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Risāla Asbāb-e Baghāwat-e Hind in Sa-D Quraishi (ed), Causes of the Indian Revolt: Three Essays (Sang-e-Meel Publications 1997) 50, 76.

62^ Mussamut Humeeda v Mussamut Budlun (Bengal) [1872] UKPC 33, 17 Cal WR Civ Rul 525. Petition of Muslims dated December 1876, from Mahommedan Society of Delhi on the occasion of the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi (1 January 1877), requested the Viceroy for the restoration of religious endowments and the places of worship confiscated after the Mutiny. IOR Private Papers/Mss Eur C643.

63^ Hunter (n 38) 185-86.

64^ Ibid 148-49 (emphasis added).

65^ Balla Mal v Ata Ullah Khan (Lahore) [1927] UKPC 61; Mohammad Ismail v Hanuman Parshad (Lahore) [1938] UKPC 63; and Beli Ram & Brothers v Chaudri Mohammad Afzal (Lahore) [1948] UKPC 35.

66^ Kozlowski, Muslim Endowments (n 4) 42.

67^ MJ Nelson, In the Shadow of Shari'ah: Islam, Islamic Law and Democracy in Pakistan (Hurst & Company 2011) endnotes 108, 314.

68^ Report on the Punjab Codification of Customary Law Conference (Superintendent, Government Printing, Punjab 1915). Nelson (n 67) 76-77.

69^ TR Holmes (ed), The Mutiny in The Cambridge History of India, Vol 6 (The Indian Empire 1858-1918) (CUP 1932) 167, 190-92. JW Kaye, A History of the Sepoy War in India, 1857-1858 (vol 2, W. H. Allen 1870) 472-73.

70^ Masjid Shahid Ganj v Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar (Lahore) [1940] UKPC 21.

71^ In one case from Oudh, the Privy Council noted that by family custom women do not inherit and accepted it as valid. Sardar Nisar Ali Khan v K. B. Sardar Mohammad Ali Khan (Lucknow) [1932] UKPC 32.

72^ F Robinson, Separatism Among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces' Muslims, 1860-1923 (OUP 1974) 17. For further details see JCW Sykes, A Compendium of the Law Specially Relating to the Taluqdars of Oudh (Thacker, Spink & Co 1886) especially introductory remarks, 1-65. Early debates about taluqdari system in Oudh and the process which led to the passing various land related laws see R Sarvadhikari, The Taluqdari Settlement in Oudh (Thacker, Spink & Co 1882).

73^ Nawab Umjad Ally Khan v Mohumdee Begum (Oudh) [1867] UKPC 41, 11 MIA 517.

74^ Lord Canning in his proclamation of 15 March 1858 declared that the property rights in Oudh were confiscated to the British Government, which would dispose of them in such manner as it may deem fitting. See a copy of the Proclamation reproduced in Sykes (n 72) 378-80.

75^ Imperial Gazetteer of India (Clarendon Press 1908) 72.

76^ Ruhulla alias Hakim Hamad v Hassanalli Degumia (Bombay) [1928] UKPC 41.

77^ It must be noted that the Patna High Court was established in 1916 for the provinces of Bihar and Orissa after the rearrangement of the province of Bengal in 1912. Dodwell (n 5) 379-81.

78^ Abadi Begum v Bibi Kaniz Zainab (Patna) [1926] UKPC 92, 54 IA 33.

79^ Sheik Mahomed Ahsanulla Chowdhry v Amarchand Kundu (Bengal) [1889] UKPC 56, 17 IA 28.

80^ Maharajah Sir Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan v Musammat Bismillah Begam (Lucknow) [1930] UKPC 76.

81^ Kozlowski paints a vivid picture of the period that led to the passing of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act 1913 in chapter 6 of his book. Kozlowski, Muslim Endowments (n 4) 156-91.

82^ Kozlowski describes the foundation dates of the forty waqf deeds in his data set by decade as follows: 1820-1830: 3; 1831-1840: 2; 1841-1850: 3; 1851-1860: 3; 1861-1870: 2; 1871-1880: 6; 1881-1890: 5; 1891-1900: 12; 1901-1910: 4. Ibid 41-42.

83^ Kunwar Muhammad Abdul Jalil Khan v Khan Bahadur Muhammad Obaid Ullah Khan (Allahabad) [1929] UKPC 61, Deed of waqf executed by Abdul Latif Khan dated 16 April 1909, LI, vol 41, shelf mark 149 g.

84^ JC Gray, The Rule Against Perpetuities (3rd edn, Little, Brown, and Company 1915) 109-161; GL Haskins, 'Extending the Grasp of the Dead Hand: Reflections on the Origins of the Rule against Perpetuities' (1977) 126 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 19.

85^ (Mirza) Yaqub Beg v Mirza Rasul Beg AIR 1923 Oudh 254, 259.

86^ Abadi Begum v Bibi Kaniz Zainab (Patna) [1926] UKPC 92, 54 IA 33.

87^ Balla Mal v Ata Ullah Khan (Lahore) [1927] UKPC 61.

88^ Hafiz Mohammed Fateh v Sir Swarup Chand Hukum Chand a firm (Bengal) [1947] UKPC 84, AIR 1948 PC 76.

89^ Mirza Fida Rasul v Mirza Yaqub Beg (Oudh) [1925] UKPC 89, AIR 1925 PC 101.

90^ (Mirza) Yaqub Beg v Mirza Rasul Beg AIR 1923 Oudh 254, 258-59.