JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpai, J. - This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.8.1978 passed by Civil Judge, Unnao in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1977 (Prem Shanker and another v. Mohan Lal and others) confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1977 passed by Munsif North, Unnao in Civil Suit No. 164 of 1973 ( Prem Shanker and another v. Mohan Lal and others). 2. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that the plaintiff no. 2, Sri Thakurji Maharaj Ram Laxman Sita Ramji Virajman room, village Saleh Nagar Karoundi, Pargana, Tahsil Safipur, district Unnao became owner of bhumidhari plots mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint by virtue of a registered Waqfnama dated 8.8.1953 executed by Srimati Sukhdei by which she became the sole Mutawalli and thereafter on 29/30th March, 1961 she appointed Sukhdeo Prasad, the father of plaintiff no. 1 as Sarbarakar in her place and Sri Sukhdeo Prasad in turn by a will appointed the plaintiff no. 1, his own son, as Sarbarakar of plaintiff no. 2 after his death. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that after executing the registered Waqfnama dated 8.8.1953 Srimati Sukhdei had herself become sole Mutawalli and she had also provided for the defendants 1 to 5 severally or jointly to be the Mutawalli of the waqf consequent upon her death and they denied that Sukhdeo Prasad was ever appointed as a Sarbarakar much less the right of the said Sarbarakar to bequeath the said office in his place consequent upon his death by executing a will. 3. The learned trial court on pleadings of the parties framed as many as 7 issues and held, after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, that the plaintiff no. 1 was not the manager of the plaintiff no. 2; that Srimati Sukhdei could not appoint the father of the plaintiff no. 1 as manager of the waqf and the defendants 1 to 5 were the managers of the waqf and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the lower appellate court and assailed the findings and in particular the findings on issues 1, 3, 4 and 7 recorded by the trial court indicated hereinabove. 1 as manager of the waqf and the defendants 1 to 5 were the managers of the waqf and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the lower appellate court and assailed the findings and in particular the findings on issues 1, 3, 4 and 7 recorded by the trial court indicated hereinabove. The learned lower appellate court, after considering the findings and after taking into consideration a judgment of this Court reported in ATR 1975 Allahabad page 255 (Brindaban V. Ram Lakhan Lal Ji and Mahadeo Ji and others ) held that once a property has been divested by a doner the succession to the office of Shebait assumes considerable importance even in the case of trusts and if the line of succession had been laid down by the doner at the time of dedication the same cannot be changed by the doner in the absence of any reservation of power to himself, as laid down in the said case. In this view of the matter the learned lower appellate court rejected the appellants' contention since in the registered Waqfnama dated 8.8.1953 Srimati Sukhdei had laid down the line of succession without reserving any right to herself to change the line of succession of Mutawallis or to appoint anybody as a future Mutawalli and thus upheld the finding recorded by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 4. In this second appeal the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is once again based on their case as detailed hereinabove. The learned trial court and the learned lower appellate court having examined the oral and documentary evidence as also on an interpretation of the case law cited before them, have not hesitated in arriving at the view that Srimati Sukhdei having been appointed Mutawalli by the registered waqf deed dated 8.8.1953 the defendants 1 to 5 were to be the Mutawallis severally or jointly of the property donated for the benefit of the plaintiff no. 2 after her death and she further had no right to nominate any Mutawalli when she had already selected her successors to perform the duties of the Mutawalli after her death and she further could not delegate her functions of Mutawalli during her life time as long as she enjoyed good health. 5. 2 after her death and she further had no right to nominate any Mutawalli when she had already selected her successors to perform the duties of the Mutawalli after her death and she further could not delegate her functions of Mutawalli during her life time as long as she enjoyed good health. 5. The view of the two courts below is, in fact, based on the ratio of a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad page 305 (Hashim Husain and others v. Ahmad Raza and others) in which their Lordships examined the scheme of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 and held that: 24. The rule on the basis of which it has been stated that a mutwalli cannot appoint his successor excepting on death bed appears to be based on the principle against delegation of the powers of a trustee in favour of another. Although it is true that a mutwalli is not a trustee within the meaning of the Act, or as understood either generally or under the Indian Trusts Act, but the nature of the duties which he is required to perform are more or less the same. A mutwalli stands in fiduciary relationship and it is against the interest of society in general that such relationship should be allowed to be terminated unilaterally. It thus appears to us that it is on account of this reason that under the Mohammedan Law a mutwalli is permitted to appoint his successor on his death bed so that the mutwalli in office may not delegate his power to work as such during his life time. Mohammedan Law thus permits the appointment of a successor by a mutwalli to be effective after his death. So the appointment of a successor by a mutwalli in good health which would be effective after the death of the mutwalli does fall within the permissible limits of the Mohemmedan Law. 6. Summarising the law they held that: 27. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Lahore High Court as in our view as well those judgments which hold that even a nomination to be valid must be made on death bed have ignored the distinction between appointment and nomination. By nomination a mutwalli only proposes or selects his successor to exercise his duties as a mutwalli on his death. By nomination a mutwalli only proposes or selects his successor to exercise his duties as a mutwalli on his death. He does not part with or delegate his functions of a mutwalli during his lifetime. It is only this delegation or parting with duties by a mutwalli during his lifetime in good health that is prohibited. 7. After having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case as also the case referred to above I respectfully agree with the decision of their Lordships in Hashim Husain's case (supra) and confirm the findings recorded by the two courts below and find no substance in this second appeal which deserves to be dismissed. 8. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. (Appeal dismissed)