Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. Clause 19 makes it clear that Smt. PDB could revoke the trust by executing Will or otherwise. She had revoked the trust by executing the Will dated 18th April, 1999 and on 15th April, 1999, three days before the execution of Will there was revocation of the trusts by her. She herself intimated such revocation to the Income-Tax Department by letter dated 27.6.2000. In view of such state of facts and the deeds and documents it is clear that the trusts were revocable and were in fact the said five trusts were revoked. No oral evidence is permissible in law to be adduced to vary or contradict the written provisions of the deeds in view of bar under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, In view of these sections no evidence or oral agreement or statement can be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms mentioned in the written deeds or the terms of the trust deeds so far as the said trust deeds relate to revocation and the Will executed by her.

46. The trusts were not revocable since MPB and PDB had reciprocally and orally agreed not to revoke the trusts. Section 92 of the Evidence Act cannot operate as bar to lead oral agreement being proved in the trial on the basis of allegation made in the complaint The complaint rests on the oral agreement between the Birla couple at the time of execution of five trusts that neither of them would revoke the trusts. The complainant was present when the Birla couple so agreed and was a witness to such agreement and there is another witness, a solicitor who advised and drafted the trust deeds and was also a trustee on the five trusts as witness. It is clear that four trusts executed by PDB do not constitute a written agreement between PDB and MPB. Similarly the trust executed by MPB is not a written agreement between MPB and PDB. So even if both of them were alive, or one of them was alive, nothing in Section 92 of Evidence Act will prevent both of them or either of them from leading oral evidence to establish oral agreement between them not to revoke the trusts.

66. On the other hand, Mr. Jethmalani submitted that late PDB had no power to revoke the trust of MPB. The trusts were not revocable since the Birla couple had reciprocally and orally agreed not to revoke the trusts. Section 92 of the Evidence Act cannot operate as a bar to lead oral evidence to prove oral agreement in that respect. In fact, the trusts created by late MPB and PDB are not written agreement between them and accordingly Section 92 of the Evidence Act does not apply. Mutual trust is recognised in law and mutual Wills in all are mutual trusts. Clause 19 of the trust deed does not confer unconditional power to revoke. All the five trusts are partly private trusts and are partly trusts for religious and charitable purpose and they are not revocable in law. In support of his contention Mr. Jethmalani cited the decisions of Re Cleaver (deceased) Cleaver v. Insley (supra), Thanthi Trust v. Income Tax Officer (supra), Controller of Estate Duty, Vidarbha and Marathwada v. Mangala (supra), Vidyanatha Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar (supra) and Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia (supra).

76. Mr. Ram Jethmalani on the contrary submitted that the trusts created by the late Birla couple were not written agreements between them. Four trusts executed by late PDB do not constitute any written agreement between her and late MPB. Similarly, the trust executed by late MPB is not a written agreement between him and his wife. Even if both of them were alive, or one of them was alive, nothing in Section 92 of the Evidence Act will prevent both of them or either of them from leading oral evidence to establish oral agreement between them not to revoke the trusts. In the trusts created by late PDB, late MPB was not a party and similarly in the trust of MPB late PDB was not a party. Accordingly, Section 92 of the Evidence Act does not apply in the instant matter to lead oral evidence to establish oral agreement between the Birla couple to show their real intention behind the trusts as to whether those were revocable or not.