Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (2.27 seconds)Harish Chandra vs Hindu Dharma Sewak Mandal And Anr. on 22 November, 1935
The plaintiff instituted a suit for obtaining refund of the money on the ground that the specific purpose for which it was given had failed. The Suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, but the Chief Court reversed the decision holding that the gift was for a particular institution conditional upon its coming into existence and not one for the general uplift of the Kshatriya community. The learned Judge further expressed the opinion that the doctrine of cy pres is applicable only in wills and not in deeds. Further reliance was placed on Harish Chandra v. Hindu Dharm Sewak Mandal, ILR 58 All 687: (AIR 1936 All 197). Here a gift was made of certain land to the Secretary of the Hindu Dharam Sewak Mandal for the express purpose of being used as the site of an Ashram to he built for imparting training to young Hindu religious reformers.
Muhammad Esuf Sahib And Anr. vs Moulvi Abdul Sathar Sahib And Anr. on 8 October, 1918
That is the general rule and it has been affirmed conclusively in Muhammad Esuf Sahib v. Abdul Sathar Sahib, ILR 42 Mad 161: (AIR 1919 Mad 515).
Advocate-General Of Bengal vs S. Webb-Johnson on 27 August, 1924
On the other hand the basis of the refusal would be that the rule has been generally applied in cases of testamentary trusts. But if the rule be capable of wider application, we do not see why it should be so circumscribed. As has been pointed by Ghose J. in Advocate General of Bengal v. Webb Johnson, 29 Cal WN 793: (AIR 1925 Cal 797), the doctrine has been borrowed from the Roman Law because by that law donations for public purposes were sustained and were applied cy pres to other purposes.
Divi Punniah vs Goruntla Kotamma (Dead) And Ors. on 24 November, 1916
11. It has been lastly argued before us that the appellants having got fresh title to the property by virtue of the patta being granted to them, the new title cannot be made subject to the trust. Reliance in this connection is placed on Punniah v. Kotamma, ILR 40 Mad 939: (AIR 1918 Mad 1265), wherein it has been held that in case of resumption the land, previously the properly of the trust, becomes the property of the person to whom Government grants it subject to the obligations ordinarily attached to the ryotwari tenure. We do not take the aforesaid authority as laying down the proposition that trustees of an institution can derive personal advantage from the administration of the trust property; for it cannot be disputed that he, who has the management of property either as an express trustee or in some fiduciary character, is not permitted to gain any personal profit by availing of b position. The rule goes so far that if the trustees sell the land to a bona Fide purchaser without notice and afterwards becomes the owner of the land, though for good and valid consideration, the trust revives again and he is hound to restore the land to the trust.
1