Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The fifth defendant had filed her written statement stating that it was false to state that the subject properties were administered only by the Secretary of the Trust. They were absolutely belonging to Kay Pee yes Trust and managed by the entire Board of Trustees collectively and not by any single individual. The Sale Agreement, dated 13.10.2004, entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant was void as it was contrary and opposed to the Deed of Declaration of Trust, dated 15.03.1996. The conditions contained in the Deed of Declaration of Trust, dated 15.03.1996, in Article 19(e) had not been complied with. The unanimous consent of all the trustees was not rendered to sell the Trust property, which was mandatory under law to dispose of any immovable properties belonging to the Trust.

11. She had further submitted that the Board of Trustees did not pass any resolution to sell the Trust properties at any point of time and no Board Meeting was held at any place in this aspect. The Board of Trustees had not passed any resolution for rendering their unanimous consent to sell the Trust properties. The conditions prescribed in the Deed of Declaration of Trust for sale of Trust properties had not been duly complied with. Hence, the agreement had not bound upon the Trust.

12. Further, she had submitted that the Secretary of the Trust alone had decided to sell the Trust properties to the deceased first plaintiff without the concurrence of all other Trustees as if he had the power to deal with the properties. Though he had acted in good faith, he had exceeded his power by entering into the Sale Agreement without the unanimous concurrence of all other Trustees. He had been completely misled by the said Vijayaboopathi, who had deceived the Secretary in this regard and there by decided to grab the Trust properties by illegal means. The price fixed by the deceased first plaintiff and the Secretary for the suit properties was very low and not in conformity with the market price prevailing in the vicinity. The Secretary was misguided by the said Vijayaboopathi in this context and thereby tried to cause heavy monitory loss to the Trust.