Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. For a trust to be unlawful and, therefore, void, it has to be shown that the deed is vitiated by any of the circumstances stated above. It has not been shown that the formation of the trust is forbidden by any law, or that it would defeat the provisions of the law, or that it is fraudulent, or that it involves or implies injury to the property of another or that it is immoral or opposed to public policy.

13. It was contended by Sri Nair, placing reliance on a Division Bench ruling of the Sind High Court in Ismail Jakira & Co. v. Burmah Shell Provident Trust Ltd., AIR 1942 Sind 47, that the mere fact that a cheque was issued in favour of the founder, in the absence of proof of it having been encashed, would not make Smt. Ramachandru Animal, the founder of the trust. On a careful reading of the decision in the above case, we find that the decision has absolutely no relevance to the present case. That was a case in which one Abdul Rahman Barkatullah, an employee of Messrs. Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd., had contributed to the company's provident fund for its employees, called the Labour Provident Fund. On October 11, 1934, the plaintiff in the suit attached a certain sum out of the moneys lying to the credit of Abdul Rahman in the fund. On October 21, 1934, Abdul Rahman retired from the service of the company, whereupon the company paid to Abdul Rahman the entire sum that was due to him in accordance with the Provident Fund Rules. In 1936, the plaintiff applied for the sale of the moneys attached by the prohibitory order in the suit in the hands of the defendant-company. At the auction sale held on April 27, 1936, the plaintiffs were permitted to bid; they purchased the debt in question and brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 81-14-3 against the defendant company contending that the defendant-company was bound to withhold the said sum from Abdul Rahman. The judge of the Small Causes Court raised two points for determination, viz: