Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In those circumstances, the question as indicated above has been referred to this court. Now the question that falls for consideration is whether by the deed dated the 24th October, 1944, which is the first deed by which the trust was created the settlor had reserved to himself any power of revocation of the said trust deed. That power, as we have referred to hereinbefore, is said to be contained in the deed itself. The relevant portion stated, inter alia, as follows ;

" ...If in future any deed or rectification deed is required to be executed in order to make the written object of the deed effective and strong or any advice is received, then the same can be done by the appointed trustees or their representatives. "
"6. Subject to the provisions of Section 5, a trust is created when the author of the trust indicates with reasonable certainty by any words or acts, (a) an intention on his part to create thereby a trust, (b) the purpose of the trust, (c) the beneficiary, and (d) the trust-property, and (unless the trust is declared by will or the author of the trust is himself to be the trustee) transfers the trust-property to the trustee. "

12. In this case, there was a creation of the trust with the certainty as contemplated by Section 6. Indeed, it is not disputed by the Revenue that no trust was created as it could not be in the facts of the case. Section 77 of the Trusts Act provided how a trust could be extinguished and it stipulated that the trust was extinguished, (a) when its purpose was completely fulfilled, which is not the case here, (b) when its purpose became unlawful, which is also not the case here, (c) when the fulfilment of its purpose became impossible by destruction of the trust property or otherwise, which is also not the case here, or when the trust being revocable was expressly revoked. Therefore, we have to consider whether the trust in this case was revocable at all in terms of Section 77, and if so, has it been revoked by the subsequent deed or could it be so done. Section 78 provided for a revocation of trust. The said section reads as follows :

13. Now Clause (a) does not apply to this case. Clause (c) is not applicable to the facts of the case. The only clause upon which reliance was placed and could be placed was Clause (b) where, in a non-testamentary document in writing, the power of revocation had been expressly reserved by the author of the trust. The first difficulty in accepting the contention that this was a revocable trust is that when the document was created the power was not reserved to the settlor. If any power of altering the terms of the trust was granted to the trustees or their representatives, that power again was not to revoke the trust but to make it effective and strong and to make it workable. The meaning of the expression "revocation" "or " revocable " is well settled. Revocation means calling back of a thing granted or a renunciation or rescindment of what was granted. See in this connection Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2391.

14. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that on a proper construction of the first deed of settlement dated 24th October, 1944, it cannot be said that the same was a revocable trust. In this connection reference may be made to Section 12 of the E.D. Act, 1953. As a good deal of arguments have been advanced, it would be material to set out the relevant portion of Section 12 of the E.D. Act, 1953, which reads as follows:

"12. (1) Property passing under any settlement made by the deceased by deed or any other instrument not taking effect as a will whereby an interest in such property for life or any other period determinate by reference to death is reserved either expressly or by implication to the settlor or whereby the settlor may have reserved to himself the right by the exercise of any power, to restore to himself or to reclaim the absolute interest in such property shall be deemed to pass on the settlor's death :...