S.N. Mathur vs Board Of Revenue/C.C.R.A. & Ors on 18 February, 2009
9.3) In Sardar Deohao Jadhav (supra), the MP High Court was considering
the question whether the instrument before it was a trust deed or a settlement
deed. In that case the properties had already been dedicated to the family
deities by the forefathers of the executant of the trust deed and the executant
was only having custody of the properties which was in the ownership of the
deities. By the deed of trust, the executant merely purported to make proper
provision in respect of the discharge of duties of his office of Shebait of the
family deities and declared a trust in respect of the properties mentioned
therein. There was no disposition, but merely a declaration or assertion that
the properties belonged to the deities. In those circumstances, the High Court
found, reading the deed as a whole, that the executant was executing a trust
deed in respect of the properties of family deities of which he was the Shebait
and the essence of the document was to provide for the custody of the
properties, and not to make any `disposition'. By executing the deed of trust,
the executant neither transferred nor parted with any property. He `lost'
nothing by executing the deed. The High Court therefore held that the
14
instrument was liable to be stamped under Article 64, as a Trust deed. The
decision, on the facts, is inapplicable.