JUDGMENT Amin Ahmed, J. - This appeal on behalf of Defendants 1 and 4 arises out of a suit for partition of certain ejmali wakf properties The facts may be briefly stated as follows: One Fazil Bhuia who was the owner of the properties in suit, by two wakfnamas dated 26th Sravan 1321 B.S., corresponding to 11th August 1914, and 2nd Sravan 1326 B.S., corresponding to 18th July 1919, respectively, made wakf of his 2/3rd interest in certain properties covered by a tenure called mirash Dengari Kaibarta. According to these two deeds Fazil Bhuia made himself mutwalli during his life time, and after his death the Plaintiff was to be mutwalli of the wakf properties. The deeds also empowered the Plaintiff to nominate his successor and also indicated the class of persons from whom the Plaintiff was to nominate his successor. Fazil Bhuia died in 1327 B.S. corresponding to 1920, leaving three sons, namely, one Wasil Bhuia, the Plaintiff (mutwalli) who is also Defendant 2 (in personal capacity), one Abdus Sobhan Bhuia, Defendant 1 Appellant, and one Ishaque Bhuia Defendant 3 and also one Abdul Ali Bhuia, his grand son by pre-deceased son, who is Defendant 4. After the death of Fazil Bhuia, all the four Defendants and also the Plaintiff executed a wakfnama dated 20th Kartick 1328 B.S. corresponding to 16th November 1921 which is ex. A, by means of which they amicably disposed of the remaining 1/3rd share of the properties of late Fazil Bhuia, left over after the wakfnamas of Fazil Bhuia, according to which all the four Defendants were to be joint mutwallis in respect of all the properties of Fazil Bhuia, and if one of these 4 joint mutwallis died his survivors or his survivor would be the mutwalli. 2. 2. The Plaintiff's case is that the executants of the deed of 1328 B.S. had never intended to dedicate these properties to God; that they all along treated their shares as their personal, property that under the wakfnamas of the Plaintiffs father the Plaintiff had no power to make Defendants 1, 3 and 4 his co-mutwallis and, therefore, the wakfnama of 1328 B.S. was void; further that because the joint possession of all the properties in suit is inconvenient and is a source of trouble among the relations, the Plaintiff demanded the partition of the 2/3rd share of the ejmali property of late Fazil Bhuia as made wakf of by the late wakif, Fazil Bhuia by the two wakfnamas dated 1321 B.S. and 1326 B.S. but as the Defendants did not agree to such a partition the present suit has been filed. Defendant 3 did not contest the suit. Defendants 1 and 4 contested the Plaintiff's claim for partition and at the trial various issues were raised, one of them being, whether the present suit was maintainable by the Plaintiff as sole mutwalli. Both the Courts below have held that the wakfnama of 1328 B.S. was not a valid and operative document and that the Plaintiff was entitled to institute the present suit as the sole mutwalli of the wakf properties. Hence the present second appeal. 3. Mr. Birendra Kumar De, the learned advocate for the Defendants-Appellants has argued before us that the Courts below ought to have held that inasmuch as the other Defendants are the three co-mutwallis of the Plaintiff according to the wakfnama of 1328 B.S., the Plaintiff alone was not competent to file the present suit for partition. It is true that the Plaintiff himself along with the other Defendants is a party to the wakfnama of 1328 B.S. by means of which the number of mutwallis was amicably increased to four and the parties acted on this wakfnama for a number of years; but the question is whether the Mahomedan law allows such alteration of the number and personnel of mutwallis in violation of the original wakfnamas of 1321 B.S. and 1326 B.S. made by the wakif, Fazil Bhuia. It may be that according to Fazil Bhiua's wakfnamas Plaintiff was empowered to nominate his successor; but he was not empowered to appoint co-mutwallis. The nomination of his successor is quite different from appointing comutwallis. It may be that according to Fazil Bhiua's wakfnamas Plaintiff was empowered to nominate his successor; but he was not empowered to appoint co-mutwallis. The nomination of his successor is quite different from appointing comutwallis. According to the wakif the Plaintiff was the sole mutwalli and he did not empower the Plaintiff to add to the number of mutwallis; nor did he anywhere in his wakfnama stated that after his death the Plaintiff could appoint three persons as co-mutwallis. So this deed of wakf of 1328 B.S. is clearly 'contrary to the intention of the wakif. Apart from this, it is now a settled law that even a wakif, after he has created a wakf and made provision for the appointment of mutwalli has no power to alter the arrangement and remove the mutwalli appointed by him, unless he reserves such powers at the time he creates the wakf; vide the case of Siddiq Ahmed Choudhury Vs. Syed Ahmed Choudhury and Others, AIR 1945 Cal 418 . So much less can a successor of the wakif, in this case, the Plaintiff mutwalli and his heirs, do the same. 4. It has also been held that a mutwalli has no power to transfer his office to another person, unless such power is expressly conferred upon him by the wakif but he may appoint a deputy to assist him in the management of the wakf property; vide the case of Salimullah v. Abdul K(sic) AIR 37 cal. 263 : 3 I.C. 419. In the present case the persons appointed by the wakfnama of 1328 B.S. are not appointed as deputies to assist the Plaintiff mutwalli, but are admittedly appointed co-mutwallis which the Plaintiff mutwalli had no right to do according to the wakfnamas of his father. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is dismissed with costs. 5. The question of the substitution of the eldest son of late Wasin Bhuia alone instead of all his heirs need not be gone into in this appeal. We therefore, pass no order on the application in this connection. Akram, C.J. 6. I agree.