Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and all the proceedings taken by the different defendants against the rights & interests of the plaintiff may be declared as without jurisdiction, null & void and in-operative because they have been initiated with collusion, fraud and under conspiracy.

By filing written statement to the suit aforesaid, the defendant No.1 had denied the pedigree of Nathmal, as mentioned in the plaint. It had been averred by the defendant No.1 that the only son of Onkardutt is Durgadutt, neither Gyanprakash is the (14 of 118) [CFA-192/2010] son nor Asha is the daughter; Surji devi was not the wedded wife of Onkardutt; Durgadutt had not executed the trust-deed; Onkardutt had no right to form the trust to regulate the properties and, therefore, the said trust is void ab initio. Gyanprakash had never been in possession of the properties in question and he is not the owner of the properties; actual possession over the properties in question is with the defendants No. 2 and 3 which is maintained; lease-deed and decree in favour of Hanuman Bux is not ab initio void; Durgadutt had given the shop and godown on 09.01.1985 through a registered lease-deed for a period of 99 years to Hanuman Bux by executing the lease-deed and Durgadutt had recovered the rent of the property and Hunuman Bux had recovered the total rent from the defendants No. 2 and 3; Hanuman Bux had got in his favour and against the defendants No. 2 and 3, a decree by filing Suit No. 34/1994 "Hanuman Bux Vs. Firm Dhanraj Dev Kishan" from the Court of Civil Judge, Bikaner on 02.06.1994 and pursuant to the execution proceedings, Hanuman Bux got the possession. Therefore, the present suit may be dismissed. By amending para No. 37-A, Durgadutt is the only son of Onkardutt and after death of Onkardutt, he became the owner of the properties in question and he had given the properties in question to the defendant No.1 on lease; Durgadutt had adopted a son and, therefore, the said trust- deed is ab initio void and for this reason, the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff is also void; plaintiffs had no right to challenge the lease-deed executed in favour of the defendant No.1, therefore, suit may be dismissed.

(69 of 118) [CFA-192/2010] Meaning of the trust itself is very clear, therefore, the learned Trial Court has wrongly held that the trustees of the trust would be a settler or a beneficiary. As per Section 3 of the Indian Trust Act, trust is not a juristic person; property vests into trust, not in trustee. In the present case the trust deed was executed in 1973. it is further stated that formation of Trust is void because the settler and executor of trust deed had no vested property in question into any trustee, thus in absence of any trustee, the formation and execution of trust is void ab initio. The meaning of trust as provided under section 3, creation of trust is not proved in view of section 6, nor trust is created as provided under section 7 and in view of section 11, execution of trust is not in existence, nor it was extinguished, in view of section 77 of Indian Trust Act 1882.

"8. Subject of Trust.- The subject-matter of a trust must be property transferable to the beneficiary. It must not be merely beneficial interest under a subsisting trust."

(86 of 118) [CFA-192/2010] As in the instant case, the trust deed dated 22.09.1973 is void, because admittedly, the property in question is an ancestral, Jamnadas died ecstasy after 1959, thus the property in question is vested into successor in view of Section 6 and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Moreover, Gyanprakash was never remained settler of trust in question. Admittedly, the property in question is an ancestral, thus it cannot be diverted into trust and trustees for benefit of beneficiaries, therefore, execution of Trust Deed is void and without jurisdiction.

As in the instant case, formation of trust deed is void because the settler and the executor of the trust deed had no vested property in question into any of the trustee, thus, in absence of any trustee, the formation and execution of the trust is void ab initio. The meaning of the trust as provided under Section 3 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (in short, 'the Act'), creation of trust is not proved in view of Section 6 of the Act, nor trust is created as provided under Section 7 of the Act and in view of Section 11 of the Act, execution of the trust is not in existence, nor it was extinguished, in view of Section 77 of the Act.