Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Synopsis.

1.  ‘Once a Trust Always a Trust’; No Dissolution; No Termination
2. Once a Dedication, No Revocation; No Extinction; No Termination
3. Temple/Deities Cannot Be Transferred
4. Transfer of an Institution
5. Can a Private (Secular) Trust be Put to an End?
6. Chapter VIII – The Extinction of Trusts  
7. Can Entire Family Members Put an End to Family Temple?
8. Cy Pres Doctrine – State & Court: Protectors of All Charities
9. Sec. 77 and 78 do not Apply to Public Trusts
10. Variation of Trust

Introduction

The provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 as to ‘Discharge of Trustee’ (Sec. 71), ‘Trust how Extinguished’ (Sec. 77) and ‘Revocation of Trust’ (Sec. 78) do not apply to public or private religious or charitable endowments. Inasmuch as the beneficiaries as a whole alone have to consent to give effect to the acts given in the above list, it is clear that it is feasible only in private trusts; and not in public trusts.

In Private Trusts Beneficiaries Can Give Consent on Certain Variations

Indian Trusts Act, 1882 permits the beneficiaries, as a whole, who are competent to contract, to do, act or perform the following matters, as stated in those sections.

• Sec.11. Modify the purpose of the trust and the directions for management.
•          23.  Acquiesce a breach of trust of trustee.
•          46.  Allow the trustee to renounce.
•          47.  Allow the trustee to delegate his office or any of his duties.
•          56.  Require trustee to transfer trust property to them, or to another.
•          58.  Transfer the interest of beneficiary.
•          62.  Ratify the sale to the trustee.
•          71.  Discharge the trustee.
•          77.  Allow to extinguish trust.
• 78.  Revoke the trust.

Two important matters are worth noticeable in this regard. First, ‘once a public endowment/trust is made, it is final and irrevocable’ is a fundamental principle of public trusts.[1] Second, by virtue of Sec. 1 of the Trusts Act, the applicability of the Trusts Act is expressly excluded from public or private religious or charitable endowments.

S. 1, Indian Trusts Act, 1882 reads as under:

• 1. “This Act may be called the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and it shall come into force on the first day of March, 1882. It extends to the whole of India… But nothing herein contained affects the rules of Muhammadan law as to Wakf, or the mutual relations of the members of an undivided family as determined by any customary or personal law, or applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments, or to trusts to distribute prizes taken in war among the captors ; and nothing in the second chapter of this Act applies to trusts created before the said day.”

Can a Private (Secular) Trust be Put to an End or Dissolved?

It is settled that in the case of (secular) private trusts, English principles are followed in India which lay down that if the beneficiaries are sui juris (of one mind), the trust can be put to an end or use the trust fund for any purpose.[2]

In Doorganath Roy Vs. Ram Chander Sen[3]the Privy Council observed that in the case of a family idol, ‘the consensus of the whole family might give the (Debutter) estate another direction’ and turn it into a secular estate; though in case of  the dedication is to a public temple, the family of the founder could not put an end to it. But, in Pramatha Nath Mullick Vs.Pradymna Kumaar Mullick[4], the Juducial Committee clarified that the property cannot be taken away from the idol and diverted to other purposes without the consent of the idol through its earthly agents who, as guardians of the deity, cannot in law consent to anything which may amount to an extinction of the deity itself.[5]

Fundamental Principles Cannot be Changed

A charitable foundation is the creature of the founder. And on this view, the founder provides for the mode of government and administration of trust.[6] The fundamental principles upon which a trust is founded cannot be varied. It applies heavily to public trusts. The courts cannot sanction any drastic amendment to the document of trust which would destroy the basic purpose for which the trust was created.

In Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun[7] House of Lords  (by a majority of 5-2) found that the minority was entitled to the assets of the Free Church. It was observed that when men subscribe money for a particular object, and leave it behind them for the promotion of that object, their successors have no right to change the object endowed.  In this case, the majority adopted new standards of doctrine, and abandoned its commitment to ‘the establishment principle’, which was held to be fundamental to the Free Church. In this circumstances, it was found that the majority had violated the conditions on which the property of the Free Church was held. This principle is also found in Milligan Vs. Mitchel[8] and Attorney General Vs. Anderson[9] and Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun. All these decisions were considered by the Madras High Court in Prasanna Venkitesa Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao (1931).[10]

In Pragji Savji Vaja  Vs. Chhotalal Narsidas Parmar[11] it was held that no deviation from the object of the trust could be allowed; and the properties could not be allowed to be sold to the members of their community for whose benefit the trust is created and the properties were acquired.

Public Trust: ‘Once a Trust Always a Trust’; No Dissolution; No Termination

A public trust is perpetual. It cannot be terminated or dissolved. Rule against perpetuities does not apply to it. It can never be put to an end though its nature may be changed.[12] Once a public endowment is made (by dedication of properties) even the former owners or founders cannot revoke it.[13] Subsequent conduct of the founder or his descendants contrary to such dedication would amount to a breach of trust.[14] Tudor on Charities[15] explained this principle as under:

• “When a charity has been founded and trusts have been declared, the founder has no power to revoke, vary or add to the trusts. This is so irrespective of whether the trusts have been declared by an individual, or by a body of subscribers, or by the trustees. “[16]

In Halsbury’s Laws of England,[17] while dealing with creation of charitable trusts, it has been observed as under:

• “Charitable trusts have sometimes been declared subject to express powers of revocation, but there has apparently been no decision on the validity of such a power except as regards the rule against perpetuities.”[18]

Dedication of property for public trust is like a bullet fired.  As long as it is in private realm it retains the character of a private property.[19] Once dedication is complete, it cannot be revoked.[20] Once a public endowment/trust is made, it is final and irrevocable. ‘Once a trust always a trust’[21] is a trite principle of law.[22]

Underhill in ‘Law relating to Trusts and Trustees’ has explained it,with respect to associations, thus:

• “However, the crucial difference surely is that no absolutely entitled members exist if the gift is on trust for future and existing members, always being for the members of the Association for the time being. The members for the time being cannot under the Association rules Appropriate Trust property for themselves for there would then be no property held on trust as intended by the testator for those persons who some years later happened to be the members of the Association for the time being.”[23]

If the property is one stand dedicated to a Political Party, Association or a Church, and the beneficiaries thereof are unascertainable, the property vests with the entire members (of such Party, Association or Church), from time to time, subject to its objectives, as revealed from the document of foundation or byelaws, if any. Such vesting is permanent, whereby it cannot be put to an end even by a majority decision of the members of a particular time. In case such association or church becomes defunctive and it is impossible to carry forward the affairs of the trust as intended by the founders, and the matter is placed before a court, the court will apply the trust-property to a charitable purpose, ‘as nearly as possible’,[24] resembling the original Trust, invoking ‘cy pres’ doctrine.  

Subsequent Deeds: Scrap of Paper

In Agasthyar Trust Vs. Commr. IT, Madras[25]the Supreme Court approved the observation of the Madras High Court, dealing with the question whether the founder of a trust had power to revoke the same,in Thanthi Trust Vs. ITO,[26] as under:

• “It is well established that the subsequent acts and conduct of the founder of the trust cannot affect the trust if there has been already a complete dedication, (vide Krishnaswamy Pillai v. Kothandarama Naicken [1914] 27 MLJ 582: Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Sanathan Dharam High School Trust v. Managing Committee, Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Rajput High School [1938] 1 MLJ 359: AIR 1938 PC 73, and Gokuldoss Jamnadoss and Co. v. Lakshminarasimhalu Chetti [1940] 2 MLJ 409: AIR 1940 Mad. 920), If a valid and complete dedication had taken place, there would be no power left in the founder to revoke and no assertion on his part or the subsequent conduct of himself or his descendants contrary to such dedication would have the effect of nullifying it. If the trust had been really and validly created, any deviation by the founder of the trust or the trustees from the declared purposes would amount only to a breach of trust and would not detract from the declaration of trust. Therefore, the subsequent-conduct of the founder in dealing with the funds of the trust long after the creation of the trust may not put an end to the trust itself.”[27]

Our Apex Court, approving the principle stated in the aforesaid passage, it is held that the trustee had no authority or jurisdiction to execute a fresh trust deed or document; and it was of no consequence, and was no more than a scrap of paper. The Trust as originally established by the deed remained unchanged or unaffected by the latter document.

Effect of Offering Trust Property as Bank Security to Raise Funds

Referring to Supreme Court decision in Agasthyar Trust Vs. Commr. IT, Madras[28] and Thanthi Trust Vs. ITO,[29]it was observed in CIT Vs. AS Kupparaju Brothers Charitable Foundation Trust [30] that it was clear that once the authors of the trust transferred the title of the property to the trustees and created a trust, they had no right to meddle with the property even if they had created partition deed, rectification deed and offered the property as security to the bank to raise funds. As pointed out by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, they were of no consequence. All those transactions were void ab initio and in no way-affected the right of the trust and were no more than a scrap of paper.

Trustees Cannot Alter the Trust.

Trustees cannot alter the purposes of the trust.[31]In RP Kapur Vs. Kaushalya Educational Trust[32]it is held by Delhi High Court (Avadh Behari Rohatgi) as under:

• “The trustees can bring the trust to an end where there is power of dissolution, as in this case. But they cannot alter the purposes of the trust. They are not authorised by the trust instrument to remodel the trust. The trustees have no power to alter, amend or vary the trust purposes, whether on the ground of “expansion” or “addition” or “enlargement” of the objects of the trust. I decline to accept any suggestion that the trustees can alter a man’s intention because they think it beneficial to divert the trust property to charity. It seems to me: that is quite impossible. The reason is that a trust is an obligation, that is to say a tie of equity (viniculum juris), whereby the trustee accepts the confidence reposed in him by the author of the trust to hold or apply the trust property for the purposes of the trust.”

Extinguishment of Trust

Sec. 77 of the Indian Trusts Act reads:

• 77. Trust how extinguished.—A trust is extinguished—
•      (a) when its purpose is completely fulfilled; or
•      (b) when its purpose becomes unlawful; or
•      (c) when the fulfillment of its purpose becomes impossible by destruction of the trust property or otherwise; or
•      (d) when the trust, being revocable, is expressly revoked.

Under Section 77, Trusts Act, a trust is extinguished in the four enumerated instances. Very rarely these provisions apply to public trusts. For example, complete destruction of the trust property, or conversion of the status of entire beneficiaries so that they all are not entitled to be the beneficiaries of the trust.

Under section 71, a trustee is discharged from his office by the extinction of the trust. But this discharge does not mean that the trustee is ceased to be a trustee, or relieved from his duty of rendering accounts and delivering the trust property to the beneficiaries.[33]

No trustee can get a discharge unless he renders accounts of his management even when there is no allegation of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance and also gross negligence. Courts have discretion in regard to the fixing the period of accounting in a suit for accounting against a trustee of a charity. [34]

Property Entrusted by Wife to Husband – Trust and Limitation

In Sheela Vs. Suresh, ILR 2020-4 Ker 486, it is held by the Kerala High Court as under:

• It is settled law and as laid down in the judgments aforesaid, when the wife entrusts with the husband any property belonging to her, a trust is created and the husband is bound to return the same to his wife. If the same is not returned, the wife has a right to demand the same by filing a suit or as in the present case, file an application before the Family Court or take other necessary steps under the relevant statutes in force. When S. 10 of the Limitation Act indicates that there is no limitation for initiating any such action, in the absence of any other statute providing for a limitation, the trustee cannot take a contention that he shall not return the trust property on account of any period of limitation.

Effect of an agreement settling obligations, Trust gets fulfilled in terms of S.77(a)

In Sheela Vs. Suresh, ILR 2020-4 Ker 486, after laying down the aforesaid settled position the Court considered whether the wife can claim property entrusted to husband (other than dowry for which there is a statutory trust as per S.6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) where there is an agreement between the parties settling the obligations arising from the trust. The court held as under:

• “The question involved in the above reference is that, when there is a change in circumstances between the spouses, especially when there is a dissolution of marriage and substantial time had elapsed, whether the trust created between them would be extinguished.”
• “The question posed is, when the relationship between the parties gets deranged and results in divorce, whether the trust gets extinguished and the divorced wife would be entitled to invoke S. 10 of the Limitation Act and file a suit at her will and pleasure at any point in time. In such an event, the questions to be considered are (i) whether a trust had been created at any point of time, (ii) if a trust has been created and the husband remains in the position of a trustee, whether it gets extinguished on the dissolution of marriage or under any other circumstances.

After quoting Sec. 77 the High Court observed as under:

• “Therefore, unless any of the eventualities as mentioned U/s. 77 takes place, which of course is a question of fact to be decided on a case to case basis and once a trust is created, it continues to operate, even though there is a dissolution of marriage.
• However, in an instance where there is an agreement between the parties settling the obligations arising from the trust, it gets fulfilled in terms of S.77(a).”

Revocable Trust

When the author/settler creates or establishes the trust reserving his power to terminate the trust, or change the beneficiaries and trustees, or the terms of the trust, as he likes, such trust at the will and pleasure of the author is called revocable trust (See: Jyotendrasinhji v. SI Tripathi, AIR 1993 SC 1991).

A trust will never be allowed to fail for want of a trustee

On the rule of equity it is held that a trust will never be allowed to fail for want of a trustee.[35] The trusts will fasten upon the conscience of whoever holds the property. Even when court directs the trustee to hand over trust property to donor it does not extinguish the trust; it makes the donor himself a trustee.

It is also well settled principle that the death of a trustee or trustees would not extinguish the trust. The office of the trustee/trustees as well as the trust estate survives to the surviving trustee or trustees. They can carry out the trust and exercise all such powers as were given to the original trustees. Upon the death of the last surviving trustee, the trust property devolves on his legal representative. (Sections 75 and 76 of the Indian Trust Act).[36]

No Discharge If Not Accounted

Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Sec. 71 reads as under:

• 71. Discharge of trustee.—A trustee may be discharged from his office only as follows:—
• (a) by the extinction of the trust;
• (b) by the completion of his duties under the trust;
• (c) by such means as may be prescribed by the instrument of trust;
• (d) by appointment under this Act of a new trustee in his place;
• (e) by consent of himself and the beneficiary, or, where there are more beneficiaries than one, all the beneficiaries being competent to contract; or
• (f) by the Court to which a petition for his discharge is presented under this Act.

Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Sec. 19 and 23 reads as under:

• 19. Accounts and information.—A trustee is bound (a) to keep clear and accurate accounts of the trust property, and (b) at all reasonable times, at the request of the beneficiary to furnish him with full and accurate information as to the amount and state of the trust property.
• 23. Liability for breach of trust.—Where the trustee commits a breach of trust, he is liable to make good the loss which the trust property or the beneficiary has thereby sustained.

The principles laid down in the above provisions of the Trusts Act apply the public trusts also. They contain the general principles of law.

In Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple Vs. Induru Pattabhirami Reddi[37] new trustees alleged misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance and also gross negligence against former trustees. On the questions whether the present trustees can demand rendition of account from the ex-trustees in respect of their management without alleging against them any acts of negligence or willful default and, if so, whether there was a bar to the maintainability of a suit for the relief of rendition of accounts in a civil court, it was observed by the Apex Court that  it was ‘common place that no trustee can get a discharge unless he renders accounts of his management’ and that this liability was irrespective of any question of negligence or wilful default. They are, therefore, held liable to render accounts of their management to the present trustees.[38]

Variation of Trust

The Trust or the author of the trust has no authority or jurisdiction to execute a fresh trust deed, after revoking the earlier trust deed.[39]The sole beneficiary, or all the beneficiaries together, can give a different direction to the trust by their common consent in the absence of incompetence on the part of any one or more of the beneficiaries. This rule has been summarized in Underhill’s Law of Trusts and Trustees:[40]

If there is only one beneficiary, or if there are several (whether entitled concurrently or successively) and they are all of one mind and he or they are not under any disability, the specific performance of the trust may be arrested and the trust modified or extinguished by him or them without reference to the wishes of the settler or trustees.[41]

Shifting of a Church

            The property of an Episcopal Church is vested with the ecclesiastical authorities, or in the endowment or trust itself, and that of a congregational church is vested with the congregation.[42]It is difficult to pin-point a tangible-nucleus or a core-element for a church (building). In this respect a church resembles Mosque. Christians also worship the invisible God Almighty. For Christians, as in the case of Muslims, worship is important, rather than the place where they worship. 

For all the above, it can be concluded that the decision lawfully taken by the authoritative body of the church to effect a shifting of the church from one place to another may not be rendered illegal. Doctrines of faith or any legal proposition (including ‘once a trust always trust’ and ‘once a dedication always a dedication’) cannot be validly raised.

Can Entire Family Members Put an End to Family Temple?

See Chapter: Public and private Temples

Cy Pres Doctrine

‘Cy pres’ Doctrine

When it is found by the court that the particular mode of charity, indicated by the donor, cannot be carried on for impossibility or impracticability, the court will execute and accomplish the donor’s intention applying ‘cy pres’ doctrine.  It is applied where from lapse of time or change of circumstances it is no longer possible to apply the property left by the founder or donor in the precise way in which it was directed to be applied (BalkrishnaVishvanath Vs. Vinayak Narayan: AIR 1932 Bom 191; AP Shah Vs. BM Institute of Mental Health: 1986  GLH 262).  It is based on the principle that the court is the protector of all charities (C ChikkaVenkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296; Narayan Krishnaji Vs. Anjuman E Islamia: AIR 1952 Kar14) and that the court will not allow to fail a validly created trust or objects of foundation. 

Invoking ‘cy pres’ doctrine the court will apply the property of the Trust to a charitable purpose ‘as nearly as possible’ (In Re Man Singh and Others, AIR 1974 Del. 228) resembling the original Trust. Besides physical impossibility, becoming the trust valueless, owing to attendant circumstances, also invites application of cy pres doctrine (Hormusji Franji Warden, ILR 32  B. 214).

The trustees are bound to carry out the directions of the author under Sec. 11 of the Trusts Act and the only way in which the directions of the testament may be varied is by applying ‘cy  pres’ doctrine.

Transfer of Institution Itself

See Chapter: Alienation of public Trust Property

Transfer of Trusteeship to Another Body

Trust is a confidential relationship which involves a special duty of loyalty to the purpose or object of the trust.  There is no principle of law or precedent which permits transfer of trust in favour of another body of persons.[43]

In Abdul Kayum Vs. Alibhai[44] the Apex Court expounded the following legal incidents of trusteeship:

• (i) Trustees cannot transfer their duties, functions & powers to some other body of men and create them trustees in their own place unless this is clearly permitted by the trust deed, or agreed to by the entire body of beneficiaries;
• (ii) A trustee is not bound to accept the trust; but having once entered upon the trust he cannot renounce the duties and liabilities except with the permission of the Court or with the consent of the beneficiaries or by the authority of the trust deed itself.
• (iii) A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his functions except in some specified cases.

Abuse of Trust – Dedication Will Remain Valid

The endowment and its dedication will remain valid even if there is misappropriation or abuse of trust by the trustees subsequent to a valid dedication.[45]

Trust Property Doesn’t Revert Even If Trustee Refuses

It is an established principle of equity jurisprudence that a trust never fails even if there is no trustee. The property does not revert to the settlor or his heirs.[46]

---

[1]      Narayanan Vs. Nil: AIR 2005 Mad. 17; M Ashok Kumar Vs. N Janarthana: 2013(7) Mad. LJ 273; TC Chacko Vs. Annamma:  AIR 1994 Ker. 107.

[2]      Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682.

[3](1876) 4 Ind App 52 (PC)

[4](1925) 52 Ind App 245

[5] Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone Requitte: AIR 1979  SC 1682.

[6]      St. John’s College Vs. Todington: (1757) 1 Burr. 158; Green Vs. Rutherford: (1750) 1 Ves. Sen. 462; Ananda Chandra Chuckerbutly  Vs.  Braja Lal Singh (1922) I.L.R. 50 C. 292; Settikara Venkatarama  Vs. OP Damodaram  : AIR 1926 Mad 1150: (1926) 51 MLJ 457.   

[7]      (1904) AC 515: 

[8]      40 ER 852

[9]      (1888) 57 LJ Ch 543

[10]    AIR 1931 Mad. 12

[11]    AIR 2014-3 Bom R 211: 2013-6 BCR 72.

[12]    In Re Man Singh and Others, AIR 1974 Del. 228

[13]    Ramkishorelal vs. Kamalnarayan, AIR 1963 SC 890; Agasthyar Trust Vs. Commr IT Madras ; 1998 AIR (SCW)3945 ;(1998) 5 SCC 588). Krishnaswamy Pillai Vs. Kothandarama Naicken: AIR 1915 Mad 380; Dasami Sahu Vs. Param Shameshwar, AIR 1929 All 315.

[14]    Agasthyar Trust Madras Vs. CIT: 1998- 5 SCC 588.         

[15]   6th Edn.  At p. 131

[16] Quoted in: Agasthyar Trust Vs. Commr IT Madras: 1998-5 SCC 588, Sri Gasthyar Trust vs. CIT: [1999] 236 ITR 23:103 Taxman 363

[17]    4th Edn., Vol. 5, para. 624

[18]    See also: Radhika Mohan Nandy Vs. Amrita Lal Nandy, AIR 1947 Cal 301

[19]    See ILR 51 All. 626; AIR 1974 AP 316; AIR 1950 Ass. 154.

[20]    Narayanan Vs. Nil: AIR 2005 Mad. 17; M Ashok Kumar Vs. N Janarthana: 2013(7) Mad. LJ 273; T C Chacko Vs. Annamma:  AIR 1994 Ker. 107.

[21]    KS Varghese Vs. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church: (2017) 15 SCC 333.

[22]    Narayanan Vs. Nil: AIR 2005 Mad. 17; M Ashok Kumar Vs. N Janarthana: 2013(7) Mad. LJ 273; T C Chacko Vs. Annamma:  AIR 1994 Ker. 107.

[23] Quoted in: Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma: AIR 1995 SC 2001- Para 69.

[24]    In Re Man Singh and Others, AIR 1974 Del. 228

[25] 1998 AIR (SCW)3945 ;(1998) 5 SCC 588)

[26] Thanthi Trust Vs. ITO: 91 ITR 261

[27] Quoted also in: CIT Vs. AS Kupparaju Brothers Chari. Fondn. Trust: DTR 2012 69 315

[28] 1998 AIR (SCW)3945 ;(1998) 5 SCC 588)

[29]Thanthi Trust Vs. ITO: 91 ITR 261

[30]DTR 2012 69 315

[31]Agasthyar Trust Madras Vs. Commr IT ; 1998 AIR (SCW) 3945 ; (1998) 5 SCC 588). Commissioner of IT Vs. Ramaswamy Iyer: 1977 CTR  21; 1977-110 ITR 364; Naresh Sengupta Foundation Vs. Commir IT: 1994 207 ITR 340 (Cal); Christopher Karkada Vs. Church Of South India Madras: KCCR 2012 1 503

[32]    1982-21 DLT 46; ILR  1982-1Del 801

[33] S Darshan Lal Vs RES Dalliwall: AIR 1952  All 825

[34]    Attorney General Vs. Exetor Mayor: (1822) 37 ER 918; Anyasayya Vs. Muthamma: AIR 1919 Mad 943; Hariharabrahman Vs. Janakiramiah: AIR 1955 Andhra 18

[35] Sharf-uz-Zaman v. Sir Henry Stanyon, 1923 AIR Oudh 80; Seth Soorajmull Jalan Trust Vs. Tolaram Jalan, 2015 AIR (CC) 3225, 2015-4 Cal LT  1

[36] Seth Soorajmull Jalan Trust Vs. Tolaram Jalan, 2015 AIR (CC) 3225, 2015-4 Cal LT  1

[37]AIR 1967 SC 781

[38] Referred to in: M. M. Jaffar Kermani VS M. M. Hassan Kirmani: AIR 1978  Mad 121; Bhimasena Mahapatra VS Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra: AIR 1978  Ori 159, TG  Viswanathan Chettiar Vs. TA  Shanmugha Chettiar:  AIR 1992  Mad 148.

[39]Christopher Karkada, Bangalore Vs. Church of South India: ILR 2012 Kar 725: 2012-1 KCCR 503

[40]    10^th Ed., p. 421

[41]    Quoted in: A D Vehvalwala Vs. M C H Rustomji: 1970 Cal LJ 312;1970-1 Cal LT 292

[42]    Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma: AIR 1995 SC 2001.

[43]    Abdul Kayua Vs. Alibhai AIR 1963 SC 309: Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain: ILR  1982-1 Del-11.

[44]AIR 1963 SC 309

[45]    ILR 1936 Cal. 420.Kuldip Chand Vs. A G Government of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685; AIR 1954 M. 1110.

[46]    Yelandau Arasikere Deshikendra Sammthana Vs. Gangadharaiah: 2007-5 AIR Kar R 565: 2008-4 Kat LJ 323. See also: Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain ILR 1982- 1 Del 11. See Chapter: RIGHTS AND DUITIES OF TRUSTEES.

---

---