Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)Section 49 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Section 47 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Abdulla Ahmed vs Animendra Kissen Mitter on 14 March, 1950
These two decisions have been
approved of by this Court in Abdul Ahmed v. Animendra Kissen
Mitter laying down that there is a substantial difference
between 'to sell' and 'to find a purchaser'. There is no
reason why the same principle should not apply with regard
to the authority, if any, of the remaining trustees, in
terms of the resolution of March 8, 1978. If the second part
of the resolution has to be construed with reference to the
first, as is contended for, then their authority was limited
to find purchasers for the jewellery, and then place the
matter before a meeting of the Board of Trustees, for
acceptance of their bids.
Section 74 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
L. Janakirama Iyer And Others vs P. M. Nilakanta Iyer And Others on 26 October, 1961
It is axiomatic that where there are more trustees than
one, all must join in the execution of the trust, except
where the instrument of trust otherwise provides. Therefore,
as laid down by this Court in L. Janakirama Iyer's case, if
the validity of an alienation effected by the trustees falls
to be considered only in the light of s 48, the fact that
out of the three trustees only two have executed the sale
deed would by itself make the transaction invalid and would
not convey a valid title to the transferee.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Man Mohan Das vs Janki Prasad on 17 October, 1944
which, in their opinion, contains a correct statement of law
applicable in England and that the same doctrine applied to
India also. The' decision in Lala Man Mohan Das's case has
been followed with approval by this Court in L. Jankirama
Iyer & Ors. v. Neelakanta Iyer & ors.
1