Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Fire may consider the law governing the execution of the trust when there are two or more trustees. The following statement of law from 'Lewin on Trusts' may be noticed in this connection:

"In the case of co-trustees the office is a joint one. Where the administration of the trust is vested in co-trustees they all form as it were but one collective trustee, and therefore must execute the duties of the office in their joint capacity. It is not uncommon to hear one of several trustees spoken of as the acting trustee but the Court knows no such distinction; all who accept the office are in the eye of the law acting trustees., If any one refuses or be incapable to join. it is not competent for the others to proceed without him, but the administration of the trust must in that case devolve upon the Court. However, the act of one trustee done with the sanction and approval of a co-trustee may be regarded as the act of both. But such sanction or approval must be strictly proved".
"In all the proceedings to be taken in connection with this estate, you three, either unanimously or according to the decision of the majority, shall act". The Supreme Court construed this clause as not falling under me exception to S. 48 and observed:--
"It is clear that what this clause requires is that the three trustees shall act, and it provides that they shall act according to the decision which may be reached either unanimously or by majority. 'You three", that is to say, the three trustees, is the subject of the predicate 'shall act' and the words between the subject and the predicate indicate how the decision has to be reached. Reading the clause as a whole it is difficult to accept the argument that this clause allows two of the three trustees to act without joining the third trustee in the actual action to be taken in the execution of the trust. It is not necessary under the clause that in the matter of executing the trust every decision must be unanimous. The clause recognises that in some matters decision may be by majority but nevertheless it requires that once a decision is reached either unanimously or by majority, in giving effect to the decision and in taking any given action in the execution of the trust all the three must act. Thus read, this clause conforms to the statutory provisions contained in Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act and is not intended to provide for an exception to the said provisions at all It is urged that if no departure was intended to be made from the principles laid down in Section 48 the clause need not have been added at all. This argument is wholly inconclusive..... The authors of the trust, while creating the trust, have not made elaborate provisions in respect of the several matters concerning the execution of the trust and the whole scheme of the trust deed is consistent with the operative clause 23 in that it seems to require all the trustees to act together even though the decisions which they seek to give effect to, may have been majority decisions and not unanimous decisions. Therefore, in our opinion, the Courts below mere right in holding that clause 23. like the main provision of Section 48, requires that all the trustees should have joined in the execution of the sale deeds in question'. To the same effect is the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Fakira v. Ganpat AIR 1954 Nag 92, wherein it was held that the majority decision, in order to be binding on the entire body of the trustees, should have been arrived at after due deliberations by all the trustees.
(2) Where there are two or more trustees they all form as it were but one collective trustee having statutory duty and obligation to execute the duties. powers and functions of the office of the trustee jointly unless otherwise specifically provided in the instrument of trust (3) Delegation of the powers. functions and duties of a trustee is prohibited under Section 47 of the Trusts Act except in certain exceptional cases such as formal acts. etc. (4) The act of one of the trustees done with the sanction and approval of the other trustees may, in certain circumstances be construed as the act of all the trustees. The onus is on the party who sets up the plea of sanction or approval of the trustee to strictly prove the same. Where evidence has been let in, the onus of proof loses its importance. The Court is competent to arrive at a correct conclusion in respect of delegation or approval which is a mixed question of fact and law on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances.

60. The action of a beneficiary trustee must be judged not as a beneficiary but from the standpoint view of a trustee while considering his action along with other trustees in the discharge of their duty to sell the Trust property.

61. The two reasons viz., capital gain exemption and the pressure and threats of the beneficiaries given by the trustees and the tenderers for completing this impugned, hasty and hustled sale within a week, are neither true nor valid. The benefit of exemption of capital gains and in particular the re-investment of the sale proceeds in Unit Trust of India and others till the end of March 1979. as evidenced by the financial bill introduced in Lok Sabha on 28-2-1978, itself was still available on 5-3-1978, when the decisions for sale of these 37 items had been taken by the trustees. In fact. the trustees have resolved on 5-3-1978 itself to invest the sale proceeds in the Unit Trust of India. R. W. 2 the Chairman of the Trust is also the Finance Secretary of the Government of India who would have certainly known this legal position relating to the exemption of capital gains as the finance bill itself was introduced in Lok Sabha on 28-2-1978. But the trustees did not have the benefit of his advice as R.W.2 did not attend the meeting on 5-3-1978 nor does he appear to have informed the other trustees about the correct legal position in this regard.