Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It follows as a necessary corollary form the above proposition that save in certain exceptional cases to which we shall presently refer, a trustee cannot delegate any of the duties, function and power of his officer to his co-trustee or the any one else, as that the would be contrary to his obligation under the trust. This position of law is now well settled and there is high authority in support of it, namely the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayum v. Alighai, AIR 1963 SC 309. The following observation form the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case are very important and material in this determining the controversy between the parties land they may be reproduce as following:--

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.

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:

This decision also, therefore, shows that granting of a lease is not a matter which granting of a lease is not a matter which can be delegated by a trustee to nay other person "in the regular course of business".

7. Now if the granting of lease is a matter which cannot be delegated by the trustee, it must follow as a necessary corollary that the determination of a lease of the cannot be regarded as a matter which can be delegated by the co-trustee to another co-trustee to determine a lease is of the same nature and as the power and function to grant a least and if one cannot be . Both function are affected with a fiduciary duty with respect to which all co-trustee are bound to exercise there judgment and no one co-trustee can abdicate the exercise of this judgment by delegating these function to his co-trustee or to any other person.