Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The effect of this decision is that whenever a suit is brought on behalf of the Trust all the Trustees must join in the said action and it is not permissible for one or two Trustees to represent the Trust and bring an action. In the instant case, the Trust Deed does not make any provision authorising the Chairman or the Managing Trustee to file suits on behalf of the Trust.

18. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has dealt with this aspect in a more specific manner, in Dulchand - v. - Mahabit Pershad Trilokchand Charitable Trust, Delhi, The relevant paragraphs read thus :

20. Mr. Jawali, appearing for the plaintiffs respondents did not dispute the legal position. But he contended if the other Trustees do not join the plaint, then there would be a sufficient compliance if the non-co-operating Trustees are joined as defendants. It was also his contention that if for any reason the Court comes to the conclusion that a suit as framed is not maintainable, since all the Trustees have not been joined as plaintiff, it may be considered as having been filed by two trustees against the other Trustees and the matter can be treated as praying for a relief coming under Section 34 of the Trusts Act. If the plaint averments and the cause title is examined, it is clear that in the present case the suit is brought on behalf of the Trust. I have mentioned earlier that neither Dr. N. T. Mohan nor H. S. Shivaswamy have mentioned any fact which is adverse to the interest of the Trust for which they are litigating in their capacity as

22. In view of what is stated above, it is clear that the plaint as presented for and on behalf of Trust represented by Dr. N.T. Mohan and Shivaswamy, the Managing Trustee was not proper.

23. Mr.Jawali, appearing for the defendants maintained that Shivaswamy did not represent the Trust and that he was agitating in his own capacity as trustee. It is difficult to accept such a contention. I have, earlier, referred to the cause title of the plaint, details of the allegations, the reliefs asked for. I have no hesitation to hold that the two trustees desire to manage the affairs of the Trust against the wishes of the other trustees.

Therefore, it is not possible to treat the suit as one brought by Trustees against co-trustee on the ground that their acts are prejudicial to the Trust, Indeed the object of the suit is to stop defendant No. 8 from functioning as Principal and permit the two trustees i.e., Chairman and Managing Trustee to act and manage the affairs of the Trust, against the will of the other seven trustees.

28. Mr. Jawali also referred to passage in Lewin on Trusts (15th Edition) at page 199 which reads thus :