1. Mahmood hussain vs.

state of UP

In this case the wakf was created on an agricultural property and a mosque was then built on
the land.

The court held that Wakf cannot be created on a agriculture land as agricultural land is state
property and when the land vests in the State and Bhumidhar has transferable right only as a
Tenure-holder and not owner of the land. By way of creation of Waqf, vesting of land in the
God i.e. Almighty is not permissible since Waqif is not the owner of land and ownership
having not vested in him cannot be vested in the God also."and directed authorities to restore
agricultural land which was illegally being used for the creation of religious structures.

2. M. abdul Hassan vs. a. maimoonamal

The Doctrine of “Marz-ul-maut” relating to a will allegedly executed by a

Mohammedancame to be dealt with by this court in M.Abdul Hassan v. A.Maimoonamal,
(2014) 2MLJ 449. This court held that if it is pleaded that a Will is affected by the doctrine of
marz-ul-maut, when the execution of the document is admitted and the mental capacity of the
executor is also admitted then the only question to be considered is whether the executant
was under the pressure of death or in contemplation of death. This court further held that the
plea that the executant was not in a sound disposing state of mind, to execute the Will and the
plea that the will was affected by the doctrine of “Marz-ul-maut” are mutually contradictory.

The court held that the will was not affected by mazr ul maut as no evidence was let in by the
plaintiff to prove that he was in contemplation of death or under pressure of death at the time
of execution.

3. Abdul Hafiz Beg and Anr. vs. Sahebbi and Ors.

 Marz-ul-Maut
 It is a malady which induces an apprehension of death in the person suffering from it
and which eventually results in the death of the person.
 There was some lack of evidence in the present case, no doctors were examined and
further the evidence was fluid. He died on the 4th day after falling ill.
 He fell ill and never recovered from the illness. He was not able to take care of
himself. He was asking for his near and dear ones to be by his side. He was merely
making signs and shedding tears while looking at relatives.
 He made a gift 24 hours before death,
 Gift was within the ambit of Marz-ul-maut.
 The court held that just because doctors were not examined or medical reports were
not produced, it cannot be held that evidence was not appreciated- it is the subjective
apprehension of death in the mind of the sick person who eventually died suffering
from his last illness- test.
Doctrine of cypress

4. FAIQA KHATOON Vs. RIYAZUR RAHMAN KHAN SHERWANI

according to the plaintiff, the defendant was not a beneficiary under the wakf and was 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.

The court held that 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.

5. Salebhai Abdul Kader v. Bai Safiabu

In Salebhai Abdul Kader v. Bai Safiabu, the Bombay High Court held that where the
particular object laid down in a waqf fails because of some reason, the waqf would not come
to an end; it would continue and income of the property may be utilized for such other objects
which are very similar to the object laid down in the waqf. Therefore, where it is not possible
to use the property exactly in the manner directed by the founder, the court may apply this
doctrine and direct a cypress application of the income of waqf property.

6. Damodar Kashinath Rasane v. Shahajsdibi And Ors

The Court in the case of Damodar Kashinath Rasane v. Shahajsdibi And Ors . observed that
the Sunni Schools agrees in holding that a bequest in favor of an heir is invalid but, according
to the Shia law it would seem that a testator can leave a legacy to one of his heirs so long as
that legacy does not exceed one-third of his estate, and that such a legacy would be valid
without the consent of the other heirs and if the legacy exceeds one-third of the estate, it will
not be valid to any extent unless the consent of all the heirs, given after and not before the
death of the testators, had been obtained.

7. Jupudy Pardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna, (2016) 2 SCC 56

This was a case where the husband of the widow had bequeathed a limited interest in some
property to her. The court held that the interest was given to her in lieu of maintenance since
the husband was aware that she had no means to maintain herself and therefore, Section 14
(1) would apply and she had become the full owner of the property after the 1956 Act was
enacted. They gave a narrow meaning to Section 14 (2) to ensure that the woman gets the
benefit of Section 14 (1) and upheld the spirit of the provision.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 14(1) or S. 14(2) — Applicability: Property given to

Hindu woman in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance, even if by will creating only
life interest, same would get transformed into absolute right by operation of S. 14(1). Even in
absence of express words in will that life interest granted to her is in lieu of her maintenance,
if same can be gathered from nature of arrangements made in will for her enjoyment of the
property and if no one disputed the arrangement pursuant to which she continued to enjoy the
property in lieu of maintenance, then no pleading and further proof required to substantiate
the fact. []

8. Sri Daulatarao Ramachandra ... vs Smt Janabai Anandarao Jadhav

Section 14(1) of Hindu seccession Act, 1956.

9. Shehammal v. Hassan Khani Rawther

Spes successionis can be transferred in some cases

Rawther died intestate in 1986 leaving 1.70 acres of land as his estate. One of his sons
Hassan Khani obtained a decree from the Kerala High Court that the entire property belonged
to him as his late father had before his death bequeathed it to him through an oral agreement
in 1982. It was claimed the father bequeathed it to him since the other five siblings had left
the family home to set up their own families and as part of the deal decided to relinquish all
their rights on the estate after having taken some consideration.

Family arrangement would necessarily mean a decision arrived at jointly by the members of
the family and not between two individuals belonging to family in the context of spec
successionis

A Muslim is entitled to relinquish his property even before inheritance from the original
owner but is precluded from re-claiming it.