Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No. 1 has invited my attention to facts surrounding the geneses of the Trust, other than those available from a perusal of the Deed. His contention is that the Trust was formed as an acknowledgement of the services rendered by Defendant No. 1 to Lala Charat Ram. He requests that the true beneficiary of the Trust till its dissolution as envisaged in the Trust Deed is Defendant No. 1 since the corpus of the Trust (11 per cent of the shareholding of Defendant No. 2) was carved out on the earlier 19 per cent held by the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that undoubtedly no grounds for interference of the Court, on equitable considerations, has been made out, since it was not even alleged against the Trustee that he had committed any misconduct or had transgressed his fiduciary obligations in respect of the fulfilllment of the duties cast upon him under the Trust Deed. It is also his submission that during the duration of the Trust it is the Trustee who is the real owner of the assets of the Trust.

8. It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Section firstly empowers the beneficiaries in unison to modify the trustees duty to fulfill the purpose of the trust, and even to deviate from or disobey the directions of the Author/Settlor; and secondly, predicated on the second paragraph, that the Civil Court has unrestricted power, where the beneficiary is incompetent to contract, to also carry out modifications to the terms of the Trust. Learned Counsel distilled these provisions to premise that the directions contained in a Trust Deed are not immutable. The argument proceeds that since the beneficiary - Plaintiff, has demanded that the Trustee Defendant No. 1, should not exercise his voting rights although empowered so to do by the Settler/Author of the Trust, these demands and dictates must be implemented'. He further submits that it is within the powers of the beneficiary to insist on the transfer of the shares even in the face of contrary provisions contained in the Trust Deed. At the present stage, I am unable to accept such a wide proposition and to hold that this Section, contained in Chapter III, which deals with the Duties and Liabilities of the Trustees, envisages the carrying out of even those modifications as are effectively an extinguishment, dissolution or accelerated ending of an irrevocable and time-bound Trust. The illustrations to the Section infact manifest that, under the guise of modification, actions totally opposed to the terms of the Trust, cannot be taken.

9. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, cited the case of Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur & Ors. Vs. H.E.H. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur Prince Mukarram Jah & Ors., in which a Division Bench of that Court had given its imprimatur to a joint proposal by the trustees and the beneficiaries to dissolve the Trust. In my opinion this case is of little assistance since there is a serious dispute between the Trustee and the Beneficiary before me. Since there was no such dispute in the case before the learned Division Bench they did not think it necessary to give reasons beyond a reliance of the particular sections of the Trust Act, including Section 11. That the interests of Trustee and his resistance and opposition to the premature dissolution of the Trust (well before 99 years and even in the life time of the Trustee) require careful consideration, and not at the present stage of the litigation, is borne out from the following extract from that judgment. In the present case, Defendant No. 1 is undisputably one of the parties concerned with the Trust.

14. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior counsel for the Plaintiff, has argued that the provisions of the Trust Act are explicit and admit of no controversy and hence Order XII is the appropriate avenue to take. In retrospect this was not so, as would be apparent from the complex, intricate and detailed arguments addressed by both sides, who also declined my suggestion that the arguments be taken as 'Final Arguments'.

15. Shri Shanti Bhushan submitted that the beneficiary had an unfettered right to demand the transfer of the corpus of the Trust and that this unqualified right had been given statutory protection in terms of this Section. He contended that the terms of the Trust Deed need not be gone into. He emphasised that whilst the beneficiary was entitled to the execution of the trust according to the intention of its author, no such restrictions or trammels existed in its rights to obtain a transfer by the Trustees of the trust property. He further submitted that a perusal of the Illustration would only fortify his argument that the dissolution of the present Trust could be legally demanded even before 99 years or even in the life time of the Trustee, Defendant No. 1 Shri Shanti Bhushan's stand is that the only exception this unfettered and untrammelled right for transfer of trust-property is in the case of a Trust established for the benefit of a married woman, as is envisaged in this section itself. In reply to these submissions, Dr. A.M. Singhvi contended that since the Trust was irrevocable and for a period of 99 years, the plaintiff had only a contingent interest therein, and such a inchoate interest should not be considered for the passing of the far-reaching and irreversible orders as were being prayed for. Secondly, if a narrow interpretation was to be given to the Section, it itself recognises that where the beneficial interest was to be enforced, it should be done in accordance with the terms of the Trust Deed.