Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis supplied)

13. The language of section 63 is clear and unambiguous. Section 63 creates a fiction, and like all fictions, it must be strictly MARCH 09, 2026 S.R.JOSHI 1-wpl-7587-2026.doc construed. For a transfer to be revocable, the instrument must contain a positive provision for re-transfer or a provision which gives a right to the transferor to re-assume power over the assets or income. There is no ambiguity in this regard. The statute does not enact that the mere absence of an irrevocability clause makes a trust revocable. On the contrary, it implies that a trust is irrevocable (which is the normal principle in all transfers) unless it is expressly made revocable. Silence in the deed implies irrevocability, not revocability. The interpretation to the contrary placed by Respondent No.1 turns section 63 on its head. Such an interpretation is completely misplaced. The reliance on section 63(a)(ii) is also misplaced. We cannot understand as to how an absence of any irrevocability clause can be construed as giving the transferor a right to reassume power over the assets or income. Even section 63(a)

(emphasis supplied)

18. From a plain reading of these provisions, two things emerge very clearly. First, even section 22(3A)(d) refers to "trust, being MARCH 09, 2026 S.R.JOSHI 1-wpl-7587-2026.doc revocable, is expressly revoked"; meaning thereby that in order that a trust is a revocable trust, a power to revoke is essential. In other words, the Trust Deed should have an express clause enabling the settlor to invoke the same and revoke the trust. In the absence of any revocability clause, a trust cannot be revoked. This is in line with settled law that when a person transfers property to another, either by way of gift or by way of a settlement, and on the acceptance of such transfer by the donee or the settlor, as the case may be, there is a complete transfer of ownership of property and the transferor is denuded of all right, title and interest in the property, unless the transfer is explicitly made conditional on the happening of some event. Absent any such specific clause, the fulfillment whereof either results in transfer of ownership of property to the transferee, or on the transferor being able to revoke the transfer, the transfer is absolute. The interpretation that unless there is an irrevocability clause, the trust is revocable, is completely contrary to law and has no legs to stand on. Secondly, the provisions of sections 22(3A) and (3B) are clear as to the consequences where a trust is revocable, and is revoked. In such a scenario, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner will first de-register the trust, then, he may take over the management of the properties of the trust de-registered, and MARCH 09, 2026 S.R.JOSHI 1-wpl-7587-2026.doc thereafter, dispose them of by sale or otherwise, and deposit the sale proceeds in the Public Trusts Administration Fund established under Section 57 of the MPT Act. Thus, the assets of a trust, which is registered under the MPT Act, would never come back to the settlor. They are sold on revocation and the funds are deposited in the Public Trusts Administration Fund. Once that is the case, then such trusts can never be termed as revocable trusts in terms of section 63(a) of the Act. Section 63(a) of the Act provides that a trust is revocable if the Trust Deed has a provision for re-transfer directly or indirectly of the whole or any part of the income or assets to the transferor, or where such provision in any way, gives the transferor a right to re-assume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of the income or assets. The same is impossible in case of a trust registered under the MPT Act. This is for the simple reason that in the case of a revocable trust, if the same is revoked, then the assets or proceeds from sale would never go the settlor. Thus, the reasoning of Respondent No. 1 is completely baseless and unfounded.

(emphasis supplied) MARCH 09, 2026 S.R.JOSHI 1-wpl-7587-2026.doc

23. Once the Ministry of Finance is of the above opinion, then, Respondent No.1, who functions under the administrative authority of such Ministry, cannot take a contrary stand.

24. The above discussion clearly demonstrates that Respondent No. 1 has completely misapplied the legal position. He has not understood the provisions of the Act and the MPT Act in their correct perspective. His apprehensions, if any, are completely unfounded. There cannot be any presumption that in the absence of an irrevocability clause, a trust is revocable and there is a possibility that the assets settled by the settlor would revert back to him. On the contrary, as explained earlier, unless there is any revocability clause, the trust is irrevocable and even in case of a revocable trust registered under the MPT Act, the assets would never revert back to the settlor.

MARCH 09, 2026 S.R.JOSHI 1-wpl-7587-2026.doc

30. At this stage, it will be apt to bring out the distinction between a revocable trust and a revocable transfer. A trust itself may be irrevocable in its nature, but it can receive a donation that is revocable. For instance, if a donor contributes funds with a condition that they will revert to him if a specific charitable object is not fulfilled within a certain time, the income from that specific donation may be clubbed in the hands of the donor in accordance with section 61 and such income cannot be considered as income of the trust. This is the intended scope of the interplay between sections 11 and 60 to 63, and the use of the words "subject to the provision of sections 60 to 63" in the opening part of section 11 in no manner questions the fundamental irrevocable nature of the public trust itself. Further, such income once taxed in the hands of the transferor, cannot be included as income of the transferee trust, and consequently, no exemption can be claimed by the Trust under section 11 of the Act.