Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Thus, Shri Ajit Singh Maker sold the property of the Trust to his wife Smt. Jupinder Maker, in this fashion. The consideration of Rs.19.2 crores is confirmed in the Minutes, to have been received in the trust. The above said minutes and the sale transaction in favour of Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker are impugned in both these proceedings.

STAND OF SHRI PRITPAL SINGH AND SMT. MOHINDER SINGH

29. It is argued on behalf of the Plaintiffs, who represent the interest of Shri Pritpal Singh and Smt. Mohinder Singh, that the amendment to the rules and regulations of the trust are completely illegal. The new rules sought to change the powers of the trust. Such powers being repugnant to the original objectives of the trust itself, the trustees have no authority to adopt these new rules. It is submitted on their behalf that the original trust deed is clear that the trustees did not have any power to sell any property belonging to the trust. As per the objective No.(xv), the trust could only let out, but not sell, immovable property belonging to it. In the new rules, however, powers were being vested in the trust to execute a sale deed and also sell any immovable property of the trust. It is their submission that these new rules are ultra vires the main trust deed and are repugnant to the objects of the trust. Since the sale transaction was entered into pursuant to the rules which are per se illegal, the transaction ought to be declared as null and void. It is further submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the trust being charitable in nature, the trustees have acted against the object of the trust and ought not to be permitted to continue as trustees. SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI AJIT SINGH MAKER AND SMT.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

36. The factual scenario presented above shows an unacceptable state of affairs in the Trust. Various applications are filed seeking a decree of the suit, dismissal of the suit. A perusal of the trust deed of Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust shows that it was conceived purely for charitable purposes. The objects of the trust did not include any benefits to the family. The trust deed clearly contemplated that in the event of the managing trustee‟s death, the next senior most trustee was to act as the managing trustee. The seniority was to be reckoned in the order in which the names of the trustees appeared in the trust deed as per clause 5(b). In case of a vacancy arising, the managing trustee had the power to appoint a trustee to fill up the vacancy. The day-to-day management of the trust vested in the managing trustee. The powers of the trust did not provide for sale of immovable property. Clause 11 of the Trust Deed is categorical and reads as under: -

37. As per the above clause, the trustees could only frame rules "for the conduct and management of the trust". However, the said rules could not be „repugnant to the objects of the trust‟. Sale of immovable property belonging to the trust is not contemplated in the trust deed. The original trustees, during their lifetime clearly intended to run charitable hospitals as one of the main objectives of the trust. In this backdrop, the question that arises is as to what are the powers of the Court in the case of such a trust.

42. Applying the above principles, it is clear that in the present case, the trust has been set up for charitable purposes. The objects of the trust are purely charitable in nature. The beneficiaries of the trust are the general public for whom educational, medical and other relief is to be provided by the trust. It contemplates construction of buildings, assistance to the disabled, food for the poor, etc. The objects being clearly charitable, the Court is the guardian of the trust and its property. The manner in which the immovable property of the trust was sold to one of the trustees and the funds of the trust of Rs.19.2 crores, being not traceable as on date, clearly establish that all is not well in the running of the trust.