Literal meaning of the Renvoi:“Renvoi” originates from the French “send back” or “return unopened”.

The “Convention of
Renvoi” is the procedure by which the Court embraces the principles of an foreign law as for any contention of law that
emerges.
Meaning of the Renvoi: The Doctrine of Renvoi is a legal doctrine which applies when a court is faced with a conflict of law
and must consider the law of another state, referred to as private international law ("PIL") rules. The Doctrine of Renvoi is the
process by which the Court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of laws that arises. The idea
behind this doctrine is to prevent forum shopping and the same law is applied to achieve the same outcome regardless of
where the case is actually dealt with. The system of Renvoi attempts to achieve that end.
Categories of Renvoi: Partial or single renvoi applies in a case when rule of law of a country refer it to another country, but
law of later country again refer the case to the law of the previous . Under the cautious eye of a judge resort to the principle
of renvoi, there is a solution of application of internal law only. But if there was no space for application of internal law, then
judge may apply proper type of renvoi.
Single Renvoi: In single renvoi, a judge of a country is faced with conflicting rules of his country and sends the case to the
foreign country but according to the law of that country, the case is referred back to his country and his country accepts sub
reference and applies the law of his country. Countries such as Spain, Italy, and Luxembourg operate a “Single Renvoi”
system.
For example, where a testator, who was a French national, was habitually resident in England but domiciled in Spain, dies
leaving moveable property in Spain, the court may need to consider which legislative forum will apply to deal with the
property under succession laws.
In this case, Spain being the law of the forum, i.e. where the property is situate, applies the law of the deceased’s nationality,
namely France and applies French law. French law observes the law of the deceased’s habitual residence which is England.
England however examines the domicile of the deceased, which is Spain. As two transfers took place, (from Spain to France
and from France to England), Spain, operating the Single Renvoi system, will not accept it back. Accordingly, the Spanish court
being the law of the forum, will apply the law where it was last left in the chain of referral i.e. with the law of England and
Wales. Where both countries operate with either no renvoi system or single renvoi systems, there is a potential problem.
In re Ross: Facts: The testatrix ( the person who writes the will) was a British national, who was domiciled in Italy and had
written a will leaving the land in Italy and the movables both in Italy and England. Where will was valid in England but not in
Italy because she had not left half of her property to her son.
Judgment: Where the Court had applied the law regarding where the property is situated. The movables in Italy because the
testatrix (the person who writes the will) holds the Italian domicile. As a result, the Judge had applied the Italian law with
respect to the immovable property situated in Italy. As Italy did not accept the renvoi based issue was decided in accordance
with English law.
Forgo case : Facts: A Bavarian national died in France, where he had lived since the age of 5. Where under the Bavarian law
the collateral relatives were entitled to succeed, but under the french law the property will be passed to the French
government but not to the family members.
Judgment: The French Court held that it would decide the inquiry by applying Bavarian law however the State contended that
the Bavarian Courts would apply French law, and the French Courts ought to do otherwise. The case was ruled for the French
state, and the reference here was to the Bavarian guidelines of contention.
The double renvoi:"Double renvoi is a type of renvoi whereby, equality of result is guaranteed by the forum court. The forum
court settle the issues in an indistinguishable way from as a foreign court chose by its choice of law principles may resolve it.
Double renvoi is implemented by the forum court when no other pertinent law is determined to determine the question. In
this situation, the forum court considers that it is sitting as the foreign court and will choose the matter as the foreign court
would. In this framework, there can never be more than two remissions. Double renvoi or total renvoi is otherwise called the
foreign courts doctrine". Dissimilar to Spain, a few nations, for example, England and France right now accept renvoi twice.
However in this framework there can never be more than two remissions. For example, let’s consider the accompanying case
whereby a departed benefactor, an Irish national, routinely occupant in Spain however domiciled in Italy, dies leaving
moveable property in France. France, being the law of the discussion (where the benefits are arrange) will look at the law of
the deceased's habitual living arrangement Spain and applies Spanish law. Spanish law watches the law of the deceased's
nationality which is Italy. Italy, as a jurisdiction that lone works a single renvoi framework, won't accept the Double Renvoi
and it is likely that for this situation France will apply Italian law
Re Annesley Case: Facts: An English woman was domiciled in France for 58 years at the time of her death. According to the
principles of English law, she was domiciled in England. Before her death, she made a will, where the will was valid as per the
English law, but it was not valid as per the French law because she did not leave 2/3rd of her estate to the children. According
to the French law 2/3rd of the property goes to their heirs. Where the France Court did not issue any authorization certificate
that she was a French domicile which was necessary for the acquisition of domicile.
Judgment: The Court said that it had applied the French law as she was holding the French domicile at the time of her death.
Based on that, the English Courts refer the matter to the French law as the law of domicile and the French law also referred
the same back to England as single renvoi is recognized in France. Therefore, the French Court would accept the Remission
and have applied the Internal law.
No Renvoi: some countries like Denmark, Greece and the US do not accept double renvoi.
Cases For Non-Applying Renvoi: The renvoi doesn't apply within the following cases:
In the matter of autonomy of will, when the parts have chosen the law applicable to their contract, in the absent of willpower
demonstration , it is assumed that they agreed of willpower manifestations, it is assumed that they agreed to choose the
existing arrangements for that contract in that specific system of law.
From the principle of the greed autonomy results the very fact that, within the matter of the contract reports, if the suited
law was chosen, it's off cast the renvoi when an act of will of the parties is missing in this case.
Even Supposing there might happen the fact that the conflict norms of a country to whom the suited law applies would not
admit the competence for this law, it must do a remit, it won't be taken into consideration the stipulation of this conflict
norm, because we will assume the very fact that the parties have found out to settle on the existent regulation for that
contract in that particular law system, with the exclusion of its conflict norms.
When applying the locus regit actum. In this case, the remission made by the conflicting norm regards the law stipulation
made by the conflicting norm regards the law stipulations of the place where the act was completed regarding it's outwards
form, without taking into account the conflicting norms of the legal system in question.
When the second degree renvoi does not allow the determination of the applicable law.
Advantages & Disadvantages of Renvoi:There are some scholars who focused on the advantages of this doctrine and see it
as a useful doctrine and a proper solution. And on the other hand some jurists are against it.
Advantages:

1) By retorting to foreign choice of law rules, the courts avoid a foreign internal law that has no connection with the
porositus
2) Some times it promotes the reasonable expectations of the parties
3) It is generally stated that the principal reason for resorting to total renvoi is to achieve uniformity in terms of the
resolution of the case, irrespective of the country in whose court the claim is transfer. It prevents the forum shopping.

Disadvantages:

1) Application of domestic law of foreign country could defeat reasonable expectations of person
2) There are some practical difficulties involved in the application of renvoi.
3) Another difficulty is when foreign law refers to nationality; easy for unitary states, but problematic for federal states.
4) Another practical problems with the doctrine that it generally requires detailed expert evidence about the state of
foreign law.

Renvoi: A Problem: The issue raised by what is known as the doctrine of renvoi in conflict of laws is simple: if the lexfori
states that a particular issue should be decided by a foreign system of law as the lexsitus Or the law of the person’s domicile,
does that mean the system’s domestic or internal rules of law, or does it mean all of that system’s rules of law, including its
conflict of laws rules?
When a reference to a country’s law refers to its complete set of rules, including its conflict of laws rules, the effect can be
unusual in some situations, especially when the conflict of laws rules of that system are fundamentally different from those of
the lexfori.
The problem of renvoi doctrine, on the other hand, cannot occur if it is knowingly decided to apply foreign law in a specific
set of circumstances because that decision must imply the application of the foreign domestic law. This is when multiple
countries agree, under an international convention, that a specific type of dispute between parties shall be addressed by a
specific legal system.
As a result, most international accords that adopt a uniform rule of conflict of laws clearly state that the law chosen as
applicable must be that legal system’s domestic law. It’s also worth noting that several conventions, such as the Rome
Convention, expressly prohibit the use of renvoi (Article 15).
s a result, it runs counter to the purpose of existing Conflict of Laws or Private International Laws. When the doctrines of
partial (single) and total (double) renvoi are used, the basic goal of justice is called into doubt. The unpredictability of the
outcome makes this philosophy difficult to apply.
Solutions to Renvoi: In theory, there are three ways to assess a reference to ascertain what is intended when it is determined
to use a particular system of law to decide a specific question under the lexfori.
To demonstrate the three alternative solutions, consider the following scenario:
The subject of succession to the moveable of an Indian national residing in Italy is being considered by an Indian court. The
following are the three options:
1. In this context, when the court is compelled to use Italian law as the lex domicile of the propositus Under its conflict of
laws rules, the court could evaluate solely Italian domestic or internal law without considering the Italian conflict of laws
regulations. The benefit of such a solution is its simplicity. Furthermore, it is consistent with the propositus’s anticipated
purpose that, although being an Indian, he has decided to live in Italy permanently and has obtained an Italian domicile. It’s
also reasonable because it entails applying conflict of laws rules only once, when the Italian rules are applied, and Italian law
is chosen as the person’s residence law. However, in some situations, this may not provide a very just outcome because, if
the problem had been determined by an Italian court, it might have employed Indian law rather than Italian law to resolve it.
2. In the same situation, the court could “accept” the case from Italy but regard it as a reference to Indian domestic law.
Remission, sometimes known as single or partial renvoi, is the term used to describe this process. On the one hand, such a
solution ensures that the result will be the same as one reached by an Italian court, which is right and proper; on the other
hand, it amounts to a virtual abrogation of our rule that such issues should be decided by the law of the person’s domicile.
However, this method has been condemned as a surrender to the rule of foreign law.
3. The third option is to use a technique known as “complete renvoi.” Total renvoi has three levels: First, a reference to Italian
law under our conflict of law rules because the propositus was domiciled in Italy; Second, a reference to Indian law because
the proper law under Italian conflict of laws rules is the law of a person’s nationality; Finally, because the second stage
requires a reference to all of the Indian law’s provisions, including its conflict of law restrictions, the third stage requires a
reference back to Italian law. This method would be satisfactory if Italy ‘accepts’ the doctrine of renvoi, and the result would
be identical to what an Italian court would have determined if the matter had been decided by it. However, if the third stage
refers to a legal system that, like the Italian system before 1995, did not accept the renvoi, the process would fail.
Because the English rulings are insufficient, Indian courts have a lot of leeway in establishing the correct law on renvoi in
general. It appears that the rule proposed in a leading English book, as described under Position of England above, is
satisfactory because it gives full effect to our conflict of law’s provisions while avoiding the uncertainties and complexity that
come with adopting the doctrine of total renvoi.
Conclusion: After we've gone through history, meaning, types, and points of interest of renvoi it's critical to recollect that it
doesn't make a difference to all or any cases. It's an established fact that doctrine of renvoi can't be treated as a general
principle in the conflict of laws. As Abla Mayss remarked on it: renvoi applies to inquiries of interstate progression and
fundamental legitimacy of wills. There is some power such that it applies to marriage which it need to apply to cases including
title to movable and immovable property.
Rather to say it's a system by which the Court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction for any conflict of law that arises.
Renvoi does not, however, determine a spot in the fields of contract or tort. And if there's no renvoi the court will apply the
Interior law.
Waqf:Literally waqf means to stop, contain, or to preserve. In shari’ah, a Waqf is a voluntary, permanent, irrevocable
dedication of a portion of ones wealth – in cash or kind – to Allah. Once a waqf, it never gets gifted, inherited, or sold. It
belongs to Allah and the corpus of the waqf always remains intact. The fruits of the waqf may be utilised for any shari’ah
compliant purpose.
Definition by Prophet Muhammad PBUH: Waqf under the Muslim Law owes its origin to a rule laid down by the Prophet and
means “ the tying up of property in the ownership of the God, the Almighty and the devotion of the profits for the benefit of
human beings.
Origins of Waqf: “Ibn ‘Umar reported: ‘Umar acquired land in Khaibar. He came to Allah’s Apostle (saw) and sought his advice
in regard to it. He said: “Allah’s Messenger, I have acquired land in Khaibar. I have never acquired more valuable for me than
this, so what do you command I do with it? Thereupon the Prophet (saw) said: If you like, you may keep the corpus intact
and give its produce as Sadaqah. So ‘Umar gave it as Sadaqah declaring that the property must not be sold or inherited or
given away as a gift. And ‘Umar devoted it to the poor, to the nearest of kin, to the emancipation of slaves, to
wayfarers/guests, and in the way of Allah.- Sahih Muslim
The Essentials of Waqf: There are the following essential element for waqf:
1) The Declaration: There is a consensus among all the schools that a waqf is created by using the word ‘waqaftu’ (I have
made a waqf), because it explicitly signifies the intention of waqf without needing any further clarification. They differ
regarding the creation of waqf by the use of such words as ‘habastu’ (I have detained), ‘sabbaltu’ (I have donated as charity),
‘abbadtu’ (I have perpetually settled) etc., and go into needless details.
The correct view is that a waqf is created and completed by using any word which is capable of proving the intention of
creating a waqf, even if it belongs to another language, because here words are means of expressing one's intention, not an
end in themselves.
2) Al-Waqif:The schools concur that sanity is a necessary condition for the creation of a waqf. Therefore, a waqf created
by an insane person is not valid, because the Shari'ah does not burden him with any duty and does not attach any significance
to his decisions, words or deeds.
The schools also concur upon maturity as a necessary condition. This implies that a waqf created by a child, irrespective of his
being discerning or not, is invalid, and neither is the guardian entitled to create a waqf on his behalf, nor the waqif
empowered to act as a guardian in this regard or to allow the creation of such a waqf. Some Imami legists consider a waqf
created by a child over ten years as valid, but most of them oppose this view.
An idiot is also incapable of creating a waqf, for it is a disposition of property and an idiot is not authorized to carry out acts
of such a nature. The Hanafis say: It is valid for an idiot to bequeath one-third of his wealth provided that the bequest is for
charitable purposes, irrespective of whether it is in the form of a waqf or otherwise (al-Fiqh 'ala-madhahib al-'arba’ah, vol.2,
‘bab mabhath al-hajr ‘ala al-safih’).
3) Al-Mawquf: The schools concur that a mawquf property should fulfil all the conditions required of a saleable
commodity, that it should be a determinate article owned by the waqif. Therefore the waqf of a receivable debt or an
unspecified property (such a when the owner says 'a field from my property' or 'a part of it') or that which cannot be owned
by a Muslim (e.g. swine) is not valid. The schools also concur that the mawquf should have a usufruct and must not be
perishable. Hence that which cannot be utilized except by consuming it (e.g. eatables) will not be valid as a waqf. To this class
also belongs the waqf of usufruct; therefore, if a tenant makes a waqf of the usufruct of a house or land which he has rented
for a specific period, it will not be valid, because the notion of waqf as something in which the property is detained and its
usufruct dedicated for a charitable purpose is not fulfilled here. There is consensus as well regarding the validity of waqf of
immovable property, e.g. land, building, orchard, etc.
All the schools, excepting the Hanafis, concur on the validity of waqf of movable property, such as animals, implements and
utensils, for they can be utilized without being consumed.
4) The Beneficiary (al-Mawquf 'Alayh): Al-mawquf 'alayh is the person entitled to the proceeds of the waqf property and
its usufruct. The following requirements must be fulfilled by the beneficiary:
1. He should exist at the time of the creation of the waqf. If he does not (as when a waqf is created for a child to be born
later), the Imami, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools consider the waqf as invalid, while the Maliki school regards it as valid. A waqf in
favour of a child to be born in the near future is valid, though it will become binding only on its birth. Therefore, if it is not
conceived or miscarries, the waqf will become void.
2. He should be capable of owning property. Hence it is neither valid to create a waqf nor to make a bequest in favour of
an animal, as done by Westerners, especially women, who bequeath part of their wealth to dogs. Regarding the waqf of
mosques, schools, sanatoriums etc., it is actually a waqf in favour of the people who benefit from them.
3. The purpose of the waqf should not be sinful (as it would be when made for a brothel, or a gambling club, pub or for
highwaymen).
Waqf Under Shia law: The essential conditions for creating a valid Waqf according to Shia Law are:
 It must be perpetual.
 It must be absolute and unconditional.
 Possession of the thing appropriated must be given.
 The waqf property should be entirely taken out of waqif.
Forms of Waqf: There are the following form of Waqf:
Economic Assets: These are generally fixed assets, income producing, include rentable shops, houses, farms, shares in
companies or businesses; function facilities e.g. halls; etc
Social Assets:These are also generally fixed or capital assets and include schools; masjids; madressahs; hospitals & clinics;
boreholes, water & sanitation facilities; libraries; cemeteries; community centers; hostels etc.
Kinds Of Waqf: There the following two types of waqf
Public Waqf– It is created for the public, religious or charitable purposes.
Private Waqf: This type of Waqf is created for the settlor’s own family and his descendants and is also known as ‘Waqf-ulal-
Aulad’. It is a kind of family settlement in the form of waqf.
Condition for donor/donation: A person must fulfil the following criteria in order to be eligible to make a Waqf donation:
1. Be an adult by law
2. Be aware of what he/she is doing and be of sound mind to do so
3. Own the property/money
4. Be free of debt
5. Offer the Waqf un-coerced and as a voluntary donation.
Benefits for the donor
1. Ongoing and never-ending blessings, even after the donor is no longer alive
2. Offers support to the community and enables the more wealthy to fulfil their social responsibility
3. Fosters trust between the community and donor
4. Revival of the Prophet’s (pbuh) sunnah.
Quran about Waqf:Allah (SWT) says in the Holy Qur’an: Indeed, those men and women who give in charity and lend to Allah
a good loan will have it multiplied for them, and they will have an honourable reward. [Surah-Hadid: 18]
Allah (SWT) also says: Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they
leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book (of evidence). [Surat Yaseen: 36.12]
“And those, who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor niggardly, but hold a medium (way) between those
(extremes).” (Al-Furqan, 67).
Sunnah about Waqf: The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) said: “When a person dies the rewards for their good deeds cease
except for three things for which they continue to get the reward (even after death) and these are:
(1) Sadaqah Jariyah (on-going Charity), or
(2) Knowledge Which Benefits People, or
(3) Pious Children Who Pray After Their Death.” (Related by Imam Muslim).
As donations to Waqf can also be made in the name of a deceased person (such as a family member or friend), the
continuous reward in this case will benefit the person to whom the donation was dedicated.
Doubts Concerning Waqf: If the purpose of the waqf is unknown and we do not know whether it is for a mosque or for the
poor or for some other purpose, the waqf will be applied to charitable purposes.
If a doubt arises as to which of two properties is subject of waqf (such as where we know the existence of a waqf, but are not
certain whether it relates to the waqif's house or shop) resort will be made to drawing lots or to a compulsory compromise;
i.e. a half of both the house and the shop will be treated as waqf.
Difference between waqf and trust: Both, in waqf as well as in trusts, the property is detained and its usufruct is utilized for
religious or charitable purposes. But, a waqf under Muslim personal law may be distinguished from a trust at least on the
following matters:
1) A waqf may be constituted only for those purposes which are recognized as religious, pious or charitable in Islam
whereas, a trust may be constituted for any lawful object.
2) Except under Hanafi law, the founder of a waqf cannot reserve any benefit for himself, but the founder of a trust may
himself be a beneficiary.
3) The powers of a mutawalli (manager of the waqf-property) are very limited as compared to the powers of a trustee.
4) (A waqf is generally perpetual and irrevocable, whereas, a trust need not be perpetual and may also be revoked under
certain conditions.
Conclusion:
1. A Sustainable Development Institution…
2. A Sadaqah Jariyyah… a Capital Gift to Allah…
3. A Legacy for the Future… a Revival of the Sunnah…
4. A Beautiful Loan to Allah… a Social Responsibility Investment… a Dedication to Allah… an ibadat..
5. A Civil Society Initiative… an Enduring Endowment…
6. a Contribution to Nation-building, Poverty Alleviation,
7. And Community Empowerment…
8. Beneficial to Muslim, Poor, and Disadvantaged Communities