ORDER T.S. Misra, J. - This revision arises in the following circumstances. One Mohammad Hadi Ali Khan was owner of village Alamnagar, Pargana Khairabad, tahsil and district Sitapur. By a deed dated 16-4-1904 he created a wakf with respect to four annas share in the said village. After a lapse of several years he executed a Hidayat Nama dated 6-6-1923 which pertained to wakf property at Sitapur. Prior to that he had acquired certain property at Lucknow and had executed another deed of wakf with respect to the said property on 25-5-1923. This wakf was registered with the Sunni Central Board of Wakfs at serial No. 120. It is a common case of both the parties before me that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad was the last Mutawalli with respect to the said wakf properties. He died on 6-9-1973. The Sunni Central Board of Wakfs obtained a report of its Inspector dated 15-11-1973 and then passed an order dated 19-11-1973 appointing Khwaja Mumtaz Ahmad as Mutawalli of the said wakf. Aggrieved thereby Khwaja Raees Ahmad filed a reference in the court of the Tribunal under the U.P. Muslim Wakfs Act, 1960, praying that the order dated 19-11-1973 appointing Mumtaz Ahmad as Mutawalli be set aside and Raees Ahmad the petitioner along with the previous Managing Committee may be allowed to administer the wakf and the new Managing Committee may not be allowed to function. In paragraph 6 of this reference petition it was stated that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad having become very ill and weak formed an ad hoc committee of the managing committee and on the request of the members of the committee and the public and also or his own wishes selected the petitioner (Khwaja Raees Ahmad) as a Mutawalli. In paragraph 8 it is stated that the Wakf Board was informed of the new Mutawalli and the new Managing Committee and the new arrangement begin to function during the lifetime of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad. In paragraph 9 it is stated that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad died on 6-9-1973 and on his death a meeting of the managing committee of the Wakf was called and general Muslims of the locality also attended the meeting on 14-9-1973 and it was decided that the petitioner (Khwaja Raees Ahmad) should continue as Mutawalli of the Wakf and the committee as was formed by Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad may continue to function as such. In paragraph 12 of the reference petition it is stated that the Wakf Board without asking any explanation or giving any notice to the petitioner Khwaja Raees Ahmad removed him from Mutawalliship and appointed a new Mutawalli, Mumtaz Ahmad and also formed a new managing committee the information of which was given to the petitioner (Khwaja Raees Ahmad) on 19-11-1973. This reference petition was opposed by the defendants of that case and written statements were filed. It was pleaded inter alia that the petitioner neither was nor is Mutawalli of the Wakf and his petition was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the last Mutawalli was not authorised by the Wakf to form a Managing Committee or to select a Mutawalli and that there was no such provision in the deed of Wakf. The learned Civil Judge held that in the original Wakf Deed Mohammad Hadi Ali Khan had made arrangement for the appointment of the Mutawalli as alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the petition and that the petitioner Khwaja Raees Ahmad was appointed Mutawalli and the appointment of Khwaja Mumtaz Ahmad as Mutawalli by the Sunni Central Board of Wakfs was illegal and invalid inasmuch as the Board had not given any notice to Khwaja Raees Ahmad before removing him from Mutawalliship. The reference petition was accordingly allowed and it was declared that the order of appointment of opposite party No. 2 (Mumtaz Ahmad) as Mutawalli was illegal. The petitioner (Khwaja Raees Ahmad) was allowed to administer Wakf according to the terms given in the Wakf Deed and subsequent arrangement made by the Mutawalli on the point. Khwaja Mumtaz Ahmad then filed the instant civil revision against the said order of the Civil Judge dated 26-9-1977. The revision petition has been opposed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and have carefully gone through the file of the case. 3. It was urged on behalf of the revisionist that on the demise of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad a vacancy occurred and the Wakf Board had a right to appoint a Mutawalli. It was also urged that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad had no right to nominate his successor as Mutawalli and if he had any right it was not established that Zaheer Ahmad had in fact nominated his son Khwaja Raees Ahmad as Mutawalli of the wakf property situate at Lucknow. It was also urged that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad had no right to nominate his successor as Mutawalli and if he had any right it was not established that Zaheer Ahmad had in fact nominated his son Khwaja Raees Ahmad as Mutawalli of the wakf property situate at Lucknow. The learned Civil Judge has held that Khwaja Raees Ahmad was appointed Mutawalli and in support of this finding he has relied on a document said to be Ex. 9 which according to the learned Civil Judge was proved by P.W. 1 Khwaja Raees Ahmad. This finding has been assailed by the revisionist and it was urged on his behalf that P.W. 1 Khwaja Raees Ahmad had not proved any document of 23-8-1973 and that there is no document on the record bearing the exhibit mark as Ex. 9. I was taken through the statement of P.W. 1 Khwaja Raees Ahmad. My attention was also drawn to the documents filed before the Court below. True it is that there is no document bearing exhibit mark as Ex. 9. There is, however, one document which bears an endorsement Ex. 9 written in pencil. This endorsement has not been made in accordance with law. It is not signed by the court. It does not bear any seal of the court. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, fell in error in saying that the petitioner Khwaja Raees Ahmad had filed Ex. 9 appointing him as Mutawalli on 23-8-1973. He also fell in error in saying that the said document was duly proved by P.W. 1 Khwaja Raees Ahmad, a bare perusal of the statement of P.W. 1 Khwaja Raees Ahmad recorded by the learned Civil Judge would disclose that he did not prove any such document in accordance with law. The document which bears endorsement in pencil as Ex. 9 and which does not bear the signature of the court is merely a true copy of some original document. The original document was not filed in the court. It was also not summoned from any other person, No foundation was laid to lead secondary evidence of the primary document. Even the secondary evidence was not proved in accordance with law. The court below could not, therefore, rely upon such document. It is a matter of first principle that if a fact is required to be proved by document then the original document should be produced. Even the secondary evidence was not proved in accordance with law. The court below could not, therefore, rely upon such document. It is a matter of first principle that if a fact is required to be proved by document then the original document should be produced. If the original is not traceable or cannot be produced before the court for certain valid reason, which must also be established, the party would be entitled to, lead secondary evidence. But so long as the circumstances which entitle a party to lead secondary evidence are not established the party cannot be permitted to establish a fact by a secondary evidence. In the case in hand the original document was not filed. No reason was given as to why the original document was not being produced before the court and in fact no effort was made to produce it, rather a copy of that document was filed which was certified by the counsel of the petitioner to be true copy of the original. This true copy of the original was also not proved. The court below should not, therefore, have relied upon such a document. The petitioner Raees Ahmad had thus failed to establish by evidence that he was appointed Mutawalli of the wakf property situate at Lucknow on 23-8-1973. He had no doubt in his oral statement deposed before the court below that his father had got him appointed Mutawalli. It was not his case that his father had nominated him as Mutawalli to be effective after the demise of his father, rather in his reference petition he had said that an ad hoc arrangement was made by his father for the proper management of the wakf property while he had become ill and weak. As pointed-out earlier in paragraph 6 of the reference petition he had stated that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad had become very ill and weak and hence he formed an ad hoc committee of the managing committee and on the request of the members of the committee and the public, and also of his own wishes selected the petitioner as Mutawalli. So, the petitioner (Khwaja Raees Ahmad) according to his own case set up in paragraph 6 of the reference petition was selected as Mutawalli by Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad while the latter had become very ill and weak. So, the petitioner (Khwaja Raees Ahmad) according to his own case set up in paragraph 6 of the reference petition was selected as Mutawalli by Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad while the latter had become very ill and weak. In paragraph 9 of his reference petition he had stated that on the death of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad a meeting of the management committee of the Wakf was called and certain Muslims of the locality also attended the meeting on 14-9-1973 and it was then decided that the petitioner should continue as Mutawalli of the Wakf and the Committee as was formed by Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad should continue to function. Here too the petitioner Khwaja Raees Ahmad did not say that he was nominated as Mutawalli by his father Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad to function in that capacity after the death of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad. His case rather is that the Muslims of the locality had gathered at a meeting held on 14-9-1973 and there it was decided that the petitioner Raees Ahmad should continue as Mutawalli. A perusal of the Wakf Deed dated 25-5-1923 relating to Lucknow property in dispute would show that there was no provision as to who would be the Mutawalli after the demise of Mohammad Hadi Ali Khan. No procedure for the appointment of Mutawalli was laid down in that deed. The Mohammedan Law does not recognise any right of inheritance to the office of Mutawalli. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. Commr. of Wealth Tax, Calcutta ( AIR 1971 SC 1691 ) that the Mutawalli has no right in the property belonging to the wakf. He is not a trustee in the technical sense, his position being merely that of a superintendent or a Manager. He is also not the owner of the property but is merely a servant of God, managing the property for the good of his creatures. Under the Mohammedan Law the founder of the wakf has the the power to appoint the first mutawalli and to lay down a scheme for the administration of the wakf and for succession to the office or Mutawalli. He may nominate successors by name or indicate any class together with their qualifications, from whom the Mutawalli may be appointed and may invest the Mutawalli with power to nominate a successor after his death or relinquishment of office. He may nominate successors by name or indicate any class together with their qualifications, from whom the Mutawalli may be appointed and may invest the Mutawalli with power to nominate a successor after his death or relinquishment of office. A Mutawalli cannot, however, transfer his office to another during his lifetime unless his own powers are general. If he appoints another person as Mutawalli in his place during his lifetime and in health the appointment will not be lawful and valid unless the Mutawalli has obtained the towliat with that condition, "in a general manner". However, if the founder and his successor are both dead, and there is no provision in the wakf- nama for succession to the office, the Mutawalli for the time being may appoint a successor on his death bed. A Division Bench of this Court in Hashim Husain v. Ahmad Raza ( AIR 1974 All 305 ): (1973 All LJ 837) held that Mohammedan Law permits the appointment of a successor by a Mutawalli to be effective after his death. So the appointment of a successor by a Mutawalli in good health which would be effective after the death of the Mutawalli does not fall within the permissible limits of the Mohammedan Law. Applying these principles to the instant case it seems that as there was no provision in the wakfnama for succession to the office of Mutawalli Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad could nominate successor for the office of Mutawalli. The case of the petitioner Khwaja Raees Ahmad was that while Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad had fallen ill and had grown sufficiently weak he formed an ad hoc managing committee for managing the wakf property and appointed Raees Ahmad, as Mutawalli. This could not obviously be done by Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad so long as he was alive-because that would amount to transferring his office to another person. In paragraph 9 of the reference petition it was said that after the death of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad a meeting of the managing committee of the Wakf was called and general Muslims of the locality also attended the meeting on 14-9-1973 and there it was resolved that Raees Ahmad should continue to function as Mutawalli. It is nowhere stated in the reference petition that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad had appointed Raees Ahmad as Mutawalli to be effective after the death of Zaheer Ahmad. It is nowhere stated in the reference petition that Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad had appointed Raees Ahmad as Mutawalli to be effective after the death of Zaheer Ahmad. The court below has held relying on the document referred herein above that Zaheer Ahmad had nominated Raees Ahmad as Mutawalli to be effective after the death of Zaheer Ahmad. I have already pointed out that the said document was not proved in accordance with law. It was, therefore, not open to the court below to rely on that document. No effort was made to lead secondary evidence in accordance with law. It was thus not proved that Khwaja Raees Ahmad was duly appointed Mutawalli by his father Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad to function as Mutawalli after the death of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-opposite-party Khwaja Raees Ahmad submitted that if it was not established that Khwaja Raees Ahmad had been duly appointed Mutawalli by Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad then Khwaja Raees Ahmad had acquired the position of a de facto Mutawalli; hence he could not be removed without being given an opportunity of hearing. I do not find any merit in this contention. As discussed above Khwaja Raees Ahmad had failed to establish by cogent evidence that he was appointed Mutawalli by his father Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad to be effective on the death of his father. He relied on the proceedings of a meeting held a few days after the death of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad wherein it was resolved that Raees Ahmad should continue to function as Mutawalli. It was on this basis that he was said to be de facto Mutawalli. Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad had died on 6-9-1973. The Inspector of the Wakf Board had submitted his report on 15-11-1973 and the Wakf Board passed the order on 19-11-1973 appointing Khwaja Mumtaz Ahmad as Mutawalli. During this period if Khwaja Raees Ahmed had attempted to function as Mutawalli it was not in the capacity of a de facto Mutawalli. His father was admittedly-a-Mutawalli who could appoint his successor to be effective after his death but that was not proved to have been done. A vacancy in the office of Mutawalli had thus occurred on the demise of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad on 6-9-1973. His father was admittedly-a-Mutawalli who could appoint his successor to be effective after his death but that was not proved to have been done. A vacancy in the office of Mutawalli had thus occurred on the demise of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad on 6-9-1973. The Sunni Central Board of Wakfs had, therefore, the requisite power under Section 19 (2) (o) of the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Wakfs Act, 1960 read with Section 48 thereof to appoint any person to act as Mutawalli. There was no question of removal of an existing Mutawalli. The Board sets right to remove an existing Mutawalli under section 55 of the Act but before the Board can do so it has to afford the existing Mutawalli an opportunity of being heard. Khwaja Raees Ahmad was not an existing Mutawalli; hence there was no question of his removal from the office of Mutawalli. The question in fact was as to who should fill the vacancy in the office of Mutawalli caused by the death of Khwaja Zaheer Ahmad. That vacancy was filled after obtaining the report of the Inspector of the Board. Khwaja Raees Ahmad could not, therefore claim any right of hearing under Section 55. In fact no proceedings under Section 55 were taken for his removal, rather action was taken by the Board under Section 19 (2) read with Section 48 of the U.P. Muslim Wakts Act, 1960. The court below was, therefore, not correct in holding that the order of the Board appointing Mumtaz Ahmad as Mutawalli was vitiated on account of the fact that Khwaja Raees Ahmad was not given any notice and was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before his removal. 5. In the result the revision application is allowed with costs and the order of the Tribunal under the U.P. Muslim Wakfs Act, 1960 (Civil Judge, Lucknow) dated 26-9-1977 is set aside and the reference petition filed by Khwaja Raees Ahmad is dismissed.