Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

by limitation.

X. The first legal objection has been raised and maintainability of the present petition has been challenged on the ground that the present petition has not been filed and same is not signed and verified by all the trustees therefore, eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondents have pointed out Clause-8 of the Trust Deed executed in favour of petitioner no. 1 and it is submitted that in the sub-clause-(a) there is provision that the board of trustees shall comprise not less than three members but at the time of filing of the present petition there were only two trustees and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. On this aspect, law is settled.

trustees, unless from the terms of the instrument of trust, it is apparent that the authority is to be exercised by a number in excess of the number of the remaining trustees.

The sub-clause - (g) of Clause-8 of the Trust Deed in favour of petitioner no. 1 provides as under:-

(g). There shall be a quorum when two Trustees are present at any meeting. Pending any vacancy the Trustees for the time being not less in number than a quorum may act for all purposes in the administration of the Trust and may exercise all or any of the authorities, powers and discretions vested in the Board of Trustees by these presents.

Thus, it is clear from the Trust Deed itself where it has been provided that the pending vacancy, the remaining trustees can act upon on behalf of petitioner no. 1 subject to their number should not be minimum to the quorum which was fixed under Trust Deed. The quorum has been fixed as minimum of two trustees. There is no denial of the fact that the other trustees i.e. Smt. Rukmani Devi Jaipuria was died at the time of filing of the present eviction petition. The present petition has been filed under the signature of petitioners no. 2 & 3 that is Rukmani Devi Vs. Dawar & Co.

the remaining two trustees. Thus, it can be safely held that the legal objection so raised has no merit.

Y. Maintainability of the present petition has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 is not a public institution and, thus, petition is not maintainable U/Sec. 22 of the D.R.C. Act.

A1. So far as question of petitioner no. 1 being public trust or private trust is concerned, an application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC was earlier filed which was disposed of holding that it is a mixed question of law and fact therefore, the said issue will be decided at the time of final disposal. Moreover, the petitioner has proved the Trust Deed Ex. PW-1/26 which is a registered Trust Deed. The object of the petitioner trust has been mentioned in Clause 6 & 7 of the Trust Deed and it has been made clear that the entire assets and income of the petitioner trust will be utilised only for the purpose of public charitable purpose i.e. for the relief of poor, spread of eduction, medical relief and running of school, colleges and dispensaries etc. A2. In his cross examination PW-1 has admitted that another property bearing no. 1877, Gali Ghante Wali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi belonging to the trust was sold about 7-8 years back and he is not aware as to how the funds received from the sale/ purchase were utilised by the petitioner trust. However, he has voluntarily examined that the said funds formed part of the corpus of the petitioner Trust.