Mukerji, Ag. C.J.
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The judgment of 'the Court below has been affirmed by this Court. We have to consideraccordingly, first, whether the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was Rs. 10,000 or upwards and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council would be Rs. 10,000 or more, and, secondly, whether the appeal involves or not a substantial question of law.
2. The facts are briefly these: Defendant 1, who is the father of the plaintiff, executed a waqralalaulad, or a dedication for the benefit of one's descendants, in 1919. Later on he executed a document which has been described as supurdnama (handing over the property) in favour of the proposed appellant Chhedi Lal, on 20th March 1924. By this document Chhedi Lal was put in possession of the entire property, which was the subject-matter of the wakf, and was to make a certain payments and to make a certain advances from time-to-time, treating the property as his security. It is in evidence that about Rs. 20,000 were advanced by Chhedi Lal by the time the case came for trial. The plaintiff, one of the three daughters of defendant 1 brought a suit, out of which this application has arisen, to obtain a declaration that the supurdnama of 1924 was not a valid document, and further for a declaration that Chhedi Lal was not entitled to enter into possession of the endowed property by virtue of the said supurdnama. It would thus appear that so far as Chhedi Lal is concerned, his entire interest was jeopardised by the suit. The property, over which he was to take possession, was the entire wakf property, which yielded profits of Rupees 8,290 a year.
3. It is clear therefore that the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court below was more than Rupees 10,000 and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty is more than Rs. 10,000, though the valuation of the suit is only Rs. 5,100.
4. As to the substantial question of law, two points of importance, as between the parties, do arise. The first question is whether the wakf was a valid one. The argument for the proposed appellant is that the deed of wakf is more or less illusory, because 20 per cent income of the wakf property is to go towards the payment of servants and to meet miscellaneous expenses, and that Rs. 700 were to go to the mutwalli himself. Then it is urged that the provision that 20 per cent. of the income was to be used for the purchase of fresh property was an invalid provision under the law, and if allowed to stand, would be against public policy.
5. A further question is raised, namely, whether the supurdnama itself was bad, having regard to the fact that the mutwalli was to get a substantial amount Out of the wakf property, and he was authorised to take advances of motley upon security of that income, and that the substantial provision of the deed of wakf is not disputed. A question of the interpretation of a document is a question of law, and when it arises between the parties, it may be said that it is a substantial question of law. We think that this is a case which fulfils the terms of Section 110, Civil P.C., and we certify accordingly.