ORDER 1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings under the V.P. Muslim Wakf Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant before us filed a reference under Section 19(2) read with Section 71 of the Act, before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal, on examination of the pleadings arising and on examination of the evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that the wakf in question is a private wakf of Qazi Saiyed Tufail Ahmed and he had executed a Will on 25-1-1985 appointing the appellant Noor Mohammed as the sole mohatmin mutawalli of the wakf in question and thereafter he had been controlling and managing the wakf property; that Qazi Saiyed Tufail Ahmed also executed a mukhtarnama in his favour to look after the wakf property. The appellant made an application before the Board to recognise him as a mutawalli. At that stage the Board treating that there was a vacancy in the office of mutawalli constituted a Committee of Management. Aggrieved by that order the appellant raised the dispute as stated earlier. 3. The Tribunal having found that the appellant had in fact been appointed as a mutawalli and he continued to act as such, held that he is the sole mohatmin mutawalli of the wakf, and is entitled to administer, supervise and remain in managerial control and possession of the aforesaid wakf property unhindered by the order made by the Board. 4. Aggrieved by that order made by the Tribunal a revision petition was filed before the High Court. The High Court formulated two questions for consideration. Firstly, whether the reference was competent as there was no removal of mutawalli and secondly, as to whether the mutawalli Qazi Saiyed Tufail Ahmed was entitled to appoint, by a Will, his successor mutawalli for the wakf. Both these questions were answered in favour of the Board resulting in allowing the revision petition setting aside the order made by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 5. It is necessary to advert to the second question first referred to by the High Court. The High Court proceeded on the basis that Qazi Saiyed Tufail Ahmed was the waqif and the first mutawalli and he retained no right in the property and, therefore, he could not appoint the next mutawalli unless there were express terms in the wakf document itself empowering him to nominate his successor. The High Court proceeded on the basis that Qazi Saiyed Tufail Ahmed was the waqif and the first mutawalli and he retained no right in the property and, therefore, he could not appoint the next mutawalli unless there were express terms in the wakf document itself empowering him to nominate his successor. No such document was brought on record and, therefore, the decision of this Court in Ahmed G.H. A riff v. CWTl would come in the way of appointment of a mutawalli in the manner claimed by the appellant and on that basis it was held that he was not a mutawalli and, therefore, the Committee of Management appointed was pursuant to the vacancy in the a office of mutawalli and hence the reference was incompetent. We may first of all advert to a decision of the High Court itself in Hashim Husain v. Ahmad Raza2 in which it was held that mutawalli can validly be nominated a successor while he is in good health and such power is available to him under the Mohammedan law. The question of property being alienated or disposed of as noticed by the High Court does not arise in this case at all. It is only the control and management of the property that is in dispute. Therefore, the High Court has misdirected itself in approaching the matter from a wrong angle. Particularly, when there was a Division Bench ruling of the High Court on the point, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached by the Division Bench. In that view of the matter we think in the present case when the Tribunal had in fact held that the appellant was indeed appointed as a mutawalli and he was acting as such throughout and when he was displaced by the Committee of Management, necessarily it amounted to removal and thus the reference is competent, is sound and had to be affirmed rather than interfered with by the High Court. 6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.