ORDER: This Court, on 26.12.2014, while admitting the CRP, granted interim stay in CRPMP No.6486 of 2014. CRPMP No.2586 of 2015 is filed by the respondent requesting to vacate the interim stay order granted on 26.12.2014. I have heard the submissions of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. I have perused the material record. 2 The short question is as to whether the interim stay order shall be sustained or vacated having regard to the facts and submissions. At the outset, the admitted facts are as follows: One Mirza Mohammed Ali Baig has endowed his properties consisting of a house and mulgies by virtue of a Will deed dated 25.12.1892 for pious and religious purposes of conducting Fatiha and Urs of his ascendants and descendants, out of the income derived from those properties. That Will Deed/Wakf Deed was acted upon and the wakf was created and registered. The said wakf was published in the Gazette. After his demise, his son Mirza Sardar Ali Baig and after him, his son Mirza Mohammed Ali Baig continued as Mutawallis of the said wakf. While Mirza Ahmed Ali Khan, the father of the respondent was continuing as Mutawalli of the said wakf, he was disqualified as he had leased out some of the properties of the wakf. Thereafter, he filed a suit in O.S.No.712 of 1985 to declare him as hereditary Mutawalli and he died during the pendency of the suit. Later, the suit was dismissed for default. Later, the present respondent made a representation to the Wakf Board for recognizing him and appointing him as Mutawalli of the subject Wakf. That application was rejected by the Wakf Board. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent filed O.A. before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was resisted by the Wakf Board. However, after full-fledged enquiry and on merits and by the order impugned in this revision, the O.A. filed by the respondent was allowed and the proceedings of the Wakf Board dated 12.06.2006 were set aside and the respondent was declared as entitled to appointment as Mutawalli of the subject wakf institution and its properties. Aggrieved thereof, the Wakf Board preferred this revision and obtained interim orders of stay as stated supra. From the material record, it appears that the Wakf Board is opposing for appointment of the respondent as Mutawalli primarily on three grounds: (i) the deed of Wakf does now show that Mutawalliship is hereditary; (ii) The father of the respondent, who mismanaged the wakf properties, was disqualified from being continued as Mutawalli of the subject wakf; and (iii) In view of his father’s ineligibility, the respondent is not entitled to claim Mutawalliship based on hereditaryship. An alternative contention advanced on behalf of the Wakf Board is that even assuming for a moment that the respondent is entitled for recognition as Mutawalli on the terms of the Wakf deed, since his father lost the claim during his life time and as the Wakf Board was shown as Mutawalli and it was Gazetted, he is not entitled to be recognized as Mutawalli and for appointment as such. 3 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, having drawn the attention of this Court to various contentions which are recorded in the order impugned and also the grounds urged, contended that the impungned order is unsustainable under facts and law and therefore, the interim stay granted earlier may be made absolute till the disposal of the revision. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, having drawn attention of this Court to certain findings recorded by the Wakf Board and also the contents of exhibit A.1 – Wakf Deed, stated that the stay orders need be vacated as the respondent is entitled to continue as Mutawalli as per the wishes of the Wakif, who endowed the property, mentioned in the wakf deed that the Mutawalliship is heritable. It is not in dispute before this court that the Wakf Deed contains the terms reflecting that the Mutawalliship is heritable. In fact, the great grandfather, grandfather and father of the respondent continued as Mutawallis in succession is also borne out by the record. The Tribunal, having posed the question as to whether the disqualification of the father of the respondent puts an end to the hereditaryship of the Mutawalliship, recorded a finding that the wishes of the Wakif outweigh any such disqualification and that the terms of the Wakf Deed shall be given effect despite the fact that the father of the respondent was disqualified to continue as Mutawalli. Coming to the contention that the Mutawalliship is not heritable in nature, it is to be noted that the Wakf Board, in the earlier suit proceedings, admitted in his written statement that as per the registered Wakf Deed, the management of wakf properties was entrusted to Mir Mohammed Ali Baig and Basith Ali jointly and thereafter, descendants from generation to generation jointly. Further, it is not the case of the Wakf Board that as per the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, the present respondent is disqualified on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the said Act. A harmonious consideration of the provisions of Sections 32 and 63 of the Act would show that the Wakf Board has to act according to the terms of the Wakf Deed and shall exercise its powers under the Act in respect of any wakf in conformity with the terms of the Deed of Wakf and where the right of a person to act as Mutawalli is undisputed and he is qualified to be appointed as Mutawalli as per the terms of the deed of Wakf, vacancy in the office of the Mutawalli of the Wakf shall be filled up by such person. Though the matter requires detailed examination in the revision, at this stage, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient case is made out to come to a safe conclusion that the respondent has got a prima facie 4 case and therefore, the interim stay order granted earlier by this Court deserves to be vacated. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the interim orders granted earlier need not be continued. Accordingly, CRPMP No.2586 of 2015 is allowed and the interim stay granted by this Court on 26.12.2014 in CRPMP No.6486 of 2014 is vacated.	