Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These observation clearly show that whether trust is a private trust governed by the Indian Trust Act or is a public charitable or religion trust, a trustee cannot delegate any of his duties, function and powers to a co-trustee or to any other person unless the instrument of trust so provides or the delegation is necessary or the beneficiaries competent to contract consent to the delegation or the delegation in the regular course business. There are the only four exceptional case sin which delegation is permissible and save in these exceptional cases, the trustees cannot even by a unanimous resolutions, authorise one of themselves to act as managing trustees for executing the duties, function and powers relating to the trust and every one of them must join in the execution of such duties, function and powers.

4. The first question which arises for decision is, whether one co-trustee can determine a tenancy by giving notice to quit to the tenant, or whether it is necessary that all co-trustees must join in giving such notice. Now there can be no doubt that unless the power and function to determine a tenancy by giving notice to quire is delegated by all co-trustees to a particular co-trustee, the notice to quite given by such co-trustee alone would be insufficient to determine the tenant and even if such delegation is made, it would be ineffective unless it falls within one of the excepts categories of permitted delegation. If the instrument of trust provides, or all beneficiaries, being competent to contract, consent that any one particular co-trustee may given notice determining a tenancy, the delegation of the power and function to the given notice determining a tenancy, the delegation of the power and function to the notice to quire would be valid and the notice to would given by the particular co-trustee would be effective be determine the tenancy. But even if the instrument of trust does not so proved and the beneficiaries, being competent to contract do the so consent,. the question would still remain whether the delegation of the power and function to given notice to quire determining the tenancy can be said to be necessary or in the regular course of business. There may be conceivable cases where the delegation of the power and function to given notice to the quire determining a tenancy may be considered necessary for the execution of the trust be such cases would be very rare rate and ordinarily but it would be very such rare and ordinarily to would be difficult to regard such delegation as necessary, though of the course this question would always depend in the last analysis on the facts and circumstances of each case. But whatever might the position in regard to the question whether such delegation is necessary or not it is clear that such delegation cannot be business said to be in the regular course of business. There are at least two decision, one of the Privy Council. and the other of the Calcutta High Court, which clearly show inferentially that such delegation cannot be sustained as a delegation in the right course of the business.

5. The first decision is the decision of the Privy Council in K. S. Bannmerji v. Sitanath Das, AIR 1922 PC 209. This was a case where a lease granted by a power-of-attorney holder of a trustee was challenged. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that the lease was execution by a person without authority and was, therefore, void. Lord Buckmaster, delivering the opinion of the Judicial Committee, gave the following reason for taking this view:--

"It was said that he was not in the strictest language a trustee; but be it so, his position was nonetheless a representative one, and it being plain that he never negotiate nor considered, nor knew of the lease until after it had been executed, if the what was done, was done by virtue of a power of attorney, it would only have been because of the power had delegated the representative authority that he possessed to a third party. The duties of Protap, however they mar be defined, were their nature fiduciary and fiduciary duties cannot be made the subject of delegation. If, therefore, the document had been before their Lordship it would have been impossible to have supported the contention that it conferred the power of the negotiate and execute for the document upon when the whole of the defendants' case rests".

It would seem from this decision the power of the grant a lease of trust property cannot be delegated by the trustee to any-one else. It is a power coupled with a fiduciary duty and fiduciary duty cannot be made the subject of delegation. Any attempted delegation would be ineffective be invalid.

6. This decision of the Privy Council was followed by the Calcutta High Court in Gopal Sridhar Mahdev , Sashi Bhusan Sarkar, AIR 1933 Cal 109. There a contract for giving for lease of certain debutter property was entered into which the plaintiffs by defendants No. 3 acting on behalf of defendant No. 2 who was the shebait. Defendant No. 2 on coming to known of the contract of lease repudiated it and that led to the filing of the specific relief by the plaintiffs. The suit 'was resisted by defendant No. 2 and one of the defence raised by her was that even if defendant No. 3. had authority to enter into the contract of the lease on behalf of defendant No. 2, such authority was ineffectual since grating of lease was matter of fiduciary obligation an it could not be delegated by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3. This defence was upheld by Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Mukerji and Bartley, JJ. The learned Judges Council in AIR 1922 PC 209 (supra) and applying of the ratio of that decision on the facts of the case before them observed: