Moosa Sait (2013 (1) KLT 813) that the term property used in S.3(r)(iii) includes income derived from the property as well. In Chhedi Lal Misra v. Civil Judge, Lucknow [(2007) 4 SCC 632], the Apex Court held that once a waqf is created, the waqif stands divested of his title to the properties which after the creation of the waqf vests in the Almighty. Apparently, when a waqf is created in respect of an immovable property, the waqif should have absolute title and interest in the property. In the case on hand, even according to the revision petitioners, Kadhiya did not have any absolute interest in the property. She was holding only a limited interest in the form of kuzhikkanam. Kuzhikkanam holders at the relevant time did not have any fixity of tenure as per the law in force. Therefore, Kadhiya could not have divested the property in the form of a waqf. That apart, the contesting respondents have a case that Kadhiya who is a female member of the family by herself could not have created a waqf as she alone would not have succeeded to the right of Ayaru Pakran as she would have been holding only a limited share in the tenancy right. Therefore, a reference to the existence of a madrassa or conduct of madrassa in a portion of the property by itself cannot
