mandatory provisions contained under the provisions of Section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995 nor Section 15 of the Wakf Act, 1954. Further, as per Section 63 of the Waqf Act, 1995, when there is a vacancy in the office of the mutawalli of a waqf and there is no one to be appointed under the terms of the deed of the waqf, the Board may appoint any other person to act as mutawalli. It is submitted that the subject Waqf is created by a deed and the Rule of Succession to the office of the mutawalli is provided in such a deed while making appointment of mutawallis in that office. Only in the absence of such provisions in the deed, the Board can appoint mutawalli in conformity with any usage or custom of the waqf sanctioned by the school of Muslim law to which the waqf belongs. Therefore, according to him, none of the provisions under the Waqf Act, 1995 or the Wakf Act, 1954 has been followed. The suit has been filed by the settlee claiming to be a separate property, whereas, the Civil Courts have held that it is a waqf property. Therefore, his contention that above suit will not operate res judicata with regard to the appointment of mutawalli as per the terms of the deed. According to him, the appointment of mutawalli has to be made only as per the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 or the Wakf Act, 1954. Therefore, the question of applying the principle of res judicata will not arise in this case.
