Judgement Appeal from a decree of the Chief Court (December 16, 1907) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Multan (April 15, 1907). The question decided was whether the appellant or his pre-decessors in title had created a valid and irrevocable waqf of the land in suit, dedicating it in perpetuity to the use of the Mahomedans in Multan as a cemetery. The respondents sued as Mahomedan residents of Multan City having the right to bury their dead in the land in suit and for a declaration that it was graveyard in possession of the Mahomedan community, with consequential relief against the appellant, who had advertised portions of the land for sale as his own property. The appellant pleaded that the land was owned and possessed by him with full power of transfer, which he had frequently exercised by sales and leases, and that it was not waqf or graveyard. The District Judge dismissed the suit, finding " that the defendant had never treated the land as waqf, that he had sold from time to time any clear spaces for building, had leased others and had realized miscellaneous income from the whole, and had asserted his rights as landlord by exacting a due of 3 pies per grave from those burying their dead with his permission," and that these transactions had not in the past been objected to by the Mahomedan community or the general public; that there had been no dedication of the area, nor had there been any declaration that the whole area now sued for was waqf. The Chief Court in appeal declared that the land in suit was waqf in possession of the Mahomedan community as a graveyard, and granted the relief prayed on the ground that " although there is no direct proof of dedication as waqf we can safely conclude that long before 1858 it had become waqf at least by user " ; and that in 1858 this status of waqf had been fully recognized, and that no acts of acquiescence in the appellants wrongful alienations could affect the rights of the plaintiffs or the tenure of the land. De Gruyther, K.C., and OGorman, for the appellant, contended that the appellant and his predecessors had been shewn by the evidence to have been in proprietary possession for generations of the land of which the area in suit formed a part. De Gruyther, K.C., and OGorman, for the appellant, contended that the appellant and his predecessors had been shewn by the evidence to have been in proprietary possession for generations of the land of which the area in suit formed a part. The burden, therefore, of proving that the land in suit had been dedicated as waqf lay upon the respondents, who had failed to discharge it. At the first regular settlement it was recorded as being in the ownership of the appellants predecessor. It was proved that in 1880 the Government acquired a portion of the appellants land for a railway station and paid compensation to his predecessor; that his predecessor had granted leases and made sales of portions of land and granted licences to bury bodies on payment. In 1858 the residents of Multan, including the appellants father, petitioned the Commissioners on sanitary grounds to restrict the right of interment to certain specified areas, but the proceedings left untouched the question of dedication by user or otherwise. Arthur Grey, for the respondents, contended that the land in suit had been entered in the record of rights of the last settlement as in possession of the Mahomedan community and was described as "kabristan " or graveyard. The appellant was no doubt entered as owner in the ownership column, but that was in accordance with custom, he being admittedly the mutawalli or trustee thereof. He referred to the Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII. of 1887), s, 44, and contended that entries made according to law in a record of rights raised a presumption of correctness which the appellant had failed to rebut. Even if no express dedication of the land could be proved the continuous use of the land for the purpose of burial shewed that it had become waqf by user. In 1858 its character as graveyard was recognized by the authorities, who on sanitary grounds ordered some portions of it to be closed and others to be used. De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. In the immediate neighbourhood of the city of Multan there is a large tract of unculturable or uncultivated land generally known as the Mai Pak Daman or the Pak Daman graveyard. From time immemorial it has been used by the Mahomedan community in Multan for the purpose of burying their dead. In the immediate neighbourhood of the city of Multan there is a large tract of unculturable or uncultivated land generally known as the Mai Pak Daman or the Pak Daman graveyard. From time immemorial it has been used by the Mahomedan community in Multan for the purpose of burying their dead. But there is no evidence to shew when or how it was originally set apart for the purpose of a burial ground. In the judgment of the Chief Court in this case there occurs the following passage giving, as their Lordships think, a very probable account of the origin and early history of this graveyard —" Bahawal Hakh [sic], the famous saint, was born in the 12th century of the Christian Era. He had a son, Sadr-ud-din, whose wife was called Mai Pak Daman. She was revered as a saint, and her body was buried in a shrine within the area in suit. No one can tell when the surrounding land was definitely set aside as wakf; but we can safely conjecture that, in the first instance, Musalmans began to bury their dead here and there in the waste land about her tomb, because of the desire to be buried near the body of a saint. There can be no doubt that for hundreds of years the land about her tomb has been used as a burial ground, and though there is no direct proof of dedication as wakf, we can safely conclude that long before 1858 it had become wakf at least by user." The year 1858 referred to in the above passage is the date of a representative public meeting of Mahomedans called by the authorities for the purpose of considering the question of Mahomedan graveyards for the city. At that meeting a resolution was passed apparently in accordance with the suggestion of the Government to the effect that owners of khankahs or shrines should keep open graveyards in their own khankahs, that four old graveyards, of which Mai Pak Daman was one, should be kept open for the whole Mahomedan community, that three new graveyards should be provided, and that all other graveyards should be closed. The predecessor in title of the person for whom the Court of Wards is now acting took part in giving effect to this resolution. The predecessor in title of the person for whom the Court of Wards is now acting took part in giving effect to this resolution. The resolution was sanctioned by Government, and in 1867 a robkar was published giving notice that if any Mahomedan buried a corpse outside the authorized places it would be taken up and buried in one of those places. In the record of rights of the last settlement an area of land which comprises the land in this suit is entered as "in the possession of the Mohammadans," and is described as kabristan or ghair-mumkin kabristan, that is "graveyard or unculturable land forming portion of a graveyard." In the ownership column Makhdum Hassan Bakhsh, now represented by the Court of Wards, is entered as "owner." It would seem that he was properly entered as owner, being trustee and custodian of the shrine of the saint Mai Pak Daman, and being or claiming to be the recognized head of the Mahomedan community in Multan. In this state of things the appellant, the Court of Wards for the property of Makhdum Hassan Bakhsh, advertised for public sale a piece of ground lying within the area of the graveyard as described in the settlement papers. Thereupon certain Mahomedan residents in Multan of different classes and various occupations combined together and brought this suit as co-plaintiffs, claiming an injunction to restrain the proposed sale, and also asking for a declaration that certain lands described in the settlement records as graveyard, and comprising an area considerably larger than that now in suit, was inalienable as waqf. It appeared in the course of the suit that on part of the land described as " graveyard " in the settlement papers there had been encroachments, that part had been acquired for public purposes, and that some lots had been, as it was alleged, sold by the Makhdum for his private purposes. So, in order to avoid all questions which might be raised with regard to land which had been so dealt with, the plaint was amended, and the area for which protection was claimed was limited to a piece of ground measuring 437 kanals and 4 marlas, or something between forty and fifty bighas. The District Judge dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal the Chief Court granted the relief asked for by the plaintiffs, but without costs. The District Judge dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal the Chief Court granted the relief asked for by the plaintiffs, but without costs. From this order of the Chief Court the Court of Wards has appealed to His Majesty in Council. The only substantial ground of appeal urged before the Board was that the area known as the Pak Daman graveyard was not one continuous burial ground, but merely an area of uncultivated ground in which here and there were to be found graves or clusters of graves, and the defence set up was that vacant ground unoccupied by graves remained the private property of Makhdum Hassan Bakhsh, and that the Court of Wards was bound or entitled to deal with it for the benefit of his estate without regard to the claim advanced by or on behalf of the Mahomedan community in Multan. The Punjab Land Revenue Act (Act XVII. of 1887), s. 44, enacts that " an entry made in a record of rights in accordance with the law for the time being in force .... shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor." Their Lordships agree with the Chief Court in thinking that the land in suit forms part of a graveyard set apart for the Mussulman community, and that by user, if not by dedication, the land is waqf. The entry in the record of rights seems conclusive on the point. It is obvious that, if it were held that within the area of the graveyard land unoccupied or apparently unoccupied by graves was private property and at the disposal of the recorded owner, it would lead to endless disputes, and the whole purpose of the Government in setting aside land as an open graveyard for the Mahomedan community in Multan would be frustrated. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the appeal.