upon the Wakf leaving surplus funds. Consequently, till the balance or surplus or residual income for the previous year is determined, the private trust purposes for the year may not take place. Accordingly, in the context of the present case, the ingredients necessary for constituting a wakf-alal-aulad is missing since the benefit conferred on the kasupangudars is not traced to any wakfnama, and hence to a wakif, but to a scheme, and the predominant purpose of the wakf is not to benefit the kasupangudars (as they derive a share only in the residual/surplus income of the wakf,) but the durgha. After all residual private benefit can never be termed as a dominant object of the wakf. And, the surplus income is not vested in God, but in the Board of Trustees for the benefit of the kasupangudars. Thus, the Board of Trustees holds the funds both for the Wakf up to the point of determining the surplus income, and thereafter holds it for the benefit of the kasupangudars. To approach this point slightly differently, which or who could have come first - The Wakf or the Kasupangudars? Where would the kasupangudars be if the wakf has not been there? Where from the surplus or the balance income come? Therefore, it is necessary to understand that at no time the Wakf depends on the kasupangudars for its existence, but the kasupangudars depend hugely on the Wakf for their benefit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sayeed Ali vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad, [(1988) 2 SCC 642], once a wakf is established it always remains a wakf, and accordingly it is not given to those who derive any personal or private benefit out of the income of the wakf, a practice generated by custom and now traceable to the Scheme decree, to claim that it is a wakf-alal-aulad.
