JUDGMENT Imam, J. - In this suit the Plaintiff seeks declaration of his title to and possession over a half share in permises No. 63, Dhurrumtola Street, in the town of Calcutta and a consequent partition of the said premises. The facts material to this case are shortly these : One Prince Syeduddin, a Mahomedan of the Sunni sect, owned and possessed several valuable properties in Calcutta, one amongst them being the premises of which a half share is in suit. He conveyed the said premises to his granddaughter Sahibzada Fatima Begum and his grandson Faizuddin under a deed of waqf, dated the 15th of July 1864, the purpose of the dedication being stated in the deed to be " service of Imam Hossain and Hassan and for religious purposes," in the manner mentioned in the deed. The direction to Fatima Begum and Faizuddin and to their successors in the trust under the endowment is to apply the rents and profits of the premises after defraying the cost of collection and repairs "to the due and proper observance of the annual Mahomedan festival of the Mohurrum." On the 20th September 1907, Fatima Begum mortgaged a half share of the premises to the Plaintiff for the consideration of Rs. 16,000 advanced to her by the latter. The debt not having been repaid, the Plaintiff sued Fatima Begum on the mortgage and obtaining a mortgage decree purchased the half share of the premises at the execution scale. Before the sale Nurul Huq, a son of Fatima Begum, addressed a letter through his attorney to the Registrar of this Court requesting him to notify to the intending purchasers at the sale Nurul Huq's protest that the property was a waqf and that Fatima Begum had not a saleable interest. The Plaintiff having failed to secure possession of the half share purchased by him has instituted this suit against Fatima Begum, Nurul Huq, her son, and the other Defendants who are the descendants of Faizuddin. The suit, however, has been contested by the Defendants other than Fatima Begum and Nurul Huq. The Plaintiff having failed to secure possession of the half share purchased by him has instituted this suit against Fatima Begum, Nurul Huq, her son, and the other Defendants who are the descendants of Faizuddin. The suit, however, has been contested by the Defendants other than Fatima Begum and Nurul Huq. The Plaintiff's contention is that the deed of the 15th August 1864, though on its face purporting to dedicate the property as waqf to religious uses, was in effect a deed of gift, the donor having adopted the device of a waqf in order to preserve the property for the benefit of the donees. The contesting Defendants assert the validity of the alleged waqf and deny the Plaintiff's title to a moiety of the premises. There is only one issue that is material to the decision of this case, namely, whether the deed of the 15th July 1864 is valid and operative as a deed of waqf. For the Plaintiff two objections are taken to the deed--(1) that the object of the waqf is not valid under the Mahomedan Law, (2) that the conveyance was in reality a gift, dedicating the property ''in the way of God'' not being the intention of the donor. It is contended for the Plaintiff that in the deed there is no indication that a general benefit was intended to be conferred on the Mahomedan public and a reference has been made to the case of Delroos Banoo Begum v. Ashgurally. Khan 15 B L.R. 167 (1875) in support of the proposition that the observance of the Mohurrum by a Mahomedan is a matter essentially of a private character. I cannot accede to the proposition in the general way it has been put. If the observance of the Mohurrum entails the feeding of the poor and distribution of alms to the needy, as it undoubtedly does, the dedication of the property to such use constitutes the service of man and the good of humanity, though to a limited section. Apart from the help to the poor and the needy, the commemoration of the historic events of Karbala, keeping alive, as it does, some of the best traditions of Islam, is to my mind as good a purpose as the followers of a faith can have. Apart from the help to the poor and the needy, the commemoration of the historic events of Karbala, keeping alive, as it does, some of the best traditions of Islam, is to my mind as good a purpose as the followers of a faith can have. I see in it the visualization of the grandest examples of courage and endurance and all that is heroic in man, from the pages of Islamic history, and I think it would be wrong to exclude it from objects valid for waqf. In the case of Delroos Banoo Begum v. Ashguratty. Khan 15 B. L. R. 167 1875, the decision rested on considerations that do not affect the present case. The Imambara in that case was a part of the private dwelling house of the Begum; in the present instance there is not the maintenance of a Imambara attached to a private house that is the purpose of the waqf, but it is the keeping up of the Mohurrum as an institution with all its moral effect on the general Mahomedan public. The contention, that Prince Syeduddin adopted the device of a waqf and in effect made a gift is not borne out by any of the circumstances of the case. The value of the premises, half of which is in suit, was admitted to be Rs. 1,43,000 only in 1864. The Prince about that time made certain dispositions of his other properties of the value of more than Rs. 58,000 in favour of Fatima Begum and Faizuddin and the deeds relating to these properties do not show that he adopted any device to preserve them for his grandchildren for all times. Had it been his intention to tie up the properties for their benefit by a device, we should have had a waqf of all the properties and not merely of the premises in suit. I hold that the deed of the 15th July 1864 is valid and operative as a deed of waqf. In this view Fatima, Begum had not a saleable interest in the property and the Plaintiff by his purchase obtained no title to it. The suit is, therefore, dismissed with costs on scale No. 2, including reserved costs, if any.