Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Synopsis

1. Application of Indian Trusts Act
2. Provisions of Trusts Act Not Apply Proprio Vigore
3. Universal Rules of Equity and Good Conscience Apply
4. Principles in Indian Trusts Act Apply to Public Trusts
5. Reimbursement of Expenses out of Trust Property
6. Trustees Cannot Renounce – Sec. 46
7. Trustees Cannot Delegate – Sec. 47
8. All Trustees Should Join – Sec. 48
9. Implied Trust in Sec. 82 & 94 of the Trust Act Applied
10. Directors of a Co and S. 88 & 95 of the Indian Trusts Act
11. Sec. 88 Encompass Gov. Bodies of Societies and Clubs
12. Direction of Court for Administration of Public Trust
13. Sec. 77 and 78 do not Apply to Public Trusts

Public Trusts and The Indian Trusts Act, 1882

The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 basically applies to and meant for private trusts, whereas Sec. 92 of the CPC pertains only to public trusts.  Public and private religious or charitable trusts are expressly excluded from the ambit of the Indian Trusts Act.

The relevant portion of Sec. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 reads as follows:

• “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.”

But there are common legal principles[1] which cover matters of both public and private trusts.[2] Our courts apply the general or common law of trusts and the universal rules of equity and good conscience upheld by the English judges in the matter of public trusts. In other words, the principles of the English Law of Trusts which have been incorporated in the Indian Trusts Act will apply to public trusts also.

In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bansi  Dhar[3]  it was held by VR Krishna Iyer J. that merely because common legal principles which cover both private and public trusts find a place in the Trusts Act, they cannot become ‘untouchable’ where affairs of public trusts are involved.[4] It is held as under:

• “But while these provisions (of Indian Trusts Act)  proprio  vigore do not apply, certainly there is a common area of legal principles which covers all trusts, private and public, and merely because they find a place in the Trusts Act, they cannot become ‘untouchable’ where Public Trusts are involved. Case must certainly be exercised not to import by analogy what is not germane to the general law of trusts, but we need have no inhibitions in administering the law by invoking the universal rules of equity and good conscience upheld by the English Judges, though also sanctified by the statute relating to private trusts. The Courts below have drawn inspiration from Section 83 of the Trusts Act and we are not inclined to find fault with them on that score because the provision merely reflects a rule of good conscience and of general application.”[5]

The Supreme Court, in Sheikh Abdul Kayum Vs. Mulla Alibhai,[6] observed:

• “It is true that Sec. 1 of the Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so these sections may not in terms apply to the trust of that kind. These sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries.”

Though the Indian Trusts Act do not apply in terms to the public trusts,[7] the common legal principles under various sections, which cover matters of both public and private trusts, especially the Sections that speak as to the Duties and Liabilities of Trustees (Chapter III), Disabilities of Trustees (Chapter V), etc., and Chapter IX pertaining to implied trusts, apply to public trusts also. [8]

Our courts apply the general law of trusts and the universal rules of equity and good conscience upheld by the English judges. In other words, the principles of the English law of Trusts which have been incorporated in the Indian Trusts Act will apply to public Trusts also. Generally, the Courts in India apply the principles and Rules of English Law on the subjects and matters which are not provided for (in an enactment) unless they are inconsistent with the existing Rules and practice. 

Provisions of Trusts Act Not Apply Proprio Vigore

Referring to Sheikh Abdul Kayum Vs.  Mulla Alibhai[9] and State of UP Vs.  Bansi Dhar,[10] it is held in Trustees of HEH The Nizams Pilgrimage Money Trust Hyderabad Vs. CIT, AP[11] that the general principles of trust adumbrated in the provisions of the Trust Act can be applied by invoking the universal rules of equity and good conscience even though provisions of the Trusts Act proprio vigore do not apply to public charitable trusts.

Indian Trusts Act: Scheme

• Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 defines trust.
• Sections 4 to 79
• Sections 4 to 79 of the Indian Trust Act deal with (merely) ‘trusts’. English Courts call this branch of trusts as ‘express trusts’.
• Sections 80 to 96
• Sections 80 to 96, in Chapter IX of the Indian Trusts Act, refer to ‘obligations in the nature of trust’. English Law classifies these trusts as ‘constructive or implied trusts’.[12] 

Principles of Trusts Act Applied to Public Trusts

• Sec. 32: Reimbursement of Expenses out of Trust Property
• Section 32 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 which provides –
  • the trustee is entitled to get reimbursement out of the trust property all expenses properly incurred in relation to the execution of the trust property and for preservation of the trust property is a principle of the English law of Trusts which has been incorporated in the Indian Trusts Act. Therefore such principles in Sec. 32 of the Indian Trusts Act are applied to public trusts also.[13]
• Sec. 46: Bars a trustee from renouncing the trust
• Sec. 46 of the Indian Trusts Act bars a trustee from renouncing the trust except under the conditions provided for in this section.
• S. 46 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 reads as under:
  • 46. Trustee cannot renounce after acceptance.—A trustee who has accepted the trust cannot afterwards renounce it except (a) with the permission of a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, or (b) if the beneficiary is competent to contract, with his consent, or (c) by virtue of a special power in the instrument of trust.
• Sec. 47:  Trustees Cannot Delegate
  • The law does not permit a trustee to delegate his functions, unless it is so provided otherwise by the terms of the deed[14] or in cases of necessity or with the consent of the entire beneficiaries if the beneficiaries are identifiable. Trustees can appoint servants or managers. If manager appointed is one among the trustees, he acts as agent of other trustees. [15]
• S. 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 reads as under:
  • 47. Trustee cannot delegate.—A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties either to a co-trustee or to a stranger, unless (a) the instrument of trust so provides, or (b) the delegation is in the regular course of business or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation.

Principles in Sec. 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act,  which deal with renunciation and delegation of the powers as well as duties of the trustees, are applied by our Courts to various affairs of fiduciary relationship,[16] and duties[17] attached thereto as they contain the common law principles of the universal rules of equity, justice and good conscience upheld by the English judges[18] unless displaced by an enacted law.

These principles would also apply with equal force to servants and, in fact, to anybody who has entered on another’s property in a fiduciary capacity.[19]It is held by our Apex Court in Marcel Martins Vs. M Printer  that the expression ‘fiduciary capacity’ is wider in its import.

Sec. 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act make it clear: a fiduciary relationship and duties[20] attached thereto should not be allowed to be unilaterally terminated or varied, as it would be against the interests of society in general. These principles would apply with equal force to servants and, in fact, to anybody who has entered on another’s property in a fiduciary capacity [21]  Relying on Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Adiya Bandopadhyay[22]  it is held by our Apex Court in Marcel Martins Vs. M Printer[23] as under:

• “It is manifest that while the expression ‘fiduciary capacity’ may not be capable of a precise definition, it implies a relationship that is analogous to the relationship between a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in fact wider in its import for it extends to all such situations as place the parties in positions that are founded on confidence and trust on the one part and good faith on the other.”

The agent who holds the property for the principal  stands, in a fiduciary capacity and as a trustee; and he  has a duty and responsibility to make over the unauthorised profits or benefits he derived while acting as an agent, and he has to properly account for the same to the principal.[24]

• Sec. 48: All Trustees Should Join in the execution
• Section 48 reads:
  • 48. Co-trustees cannot act singly.—”When there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust, except where the instrument of trust otherwise provides.”

As a general rule, the trustees must exercise their duties jointly, unless the instrument of trust otherwise provides. A trustee cannot delegate any of the duties, functions and powers of his office to his co-trustees or to anyone else,  as that would be contrary to his obligation under the Trust. The intent behind these propositions is clear: that, a fiduciary relationship created shall not be allowed to be shattered unilaterally.

Lewin on Trusts, lays down:

• “In the case of co-trustees of a private trust, 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. Sometimes, one of several trustees is spoken of as the acting trustees, but the Court knows of no such distinction: all who accept the office are in the eyes of the law acting trustees. If anyone refuses or is incapable to join, it is not competent for the others to proceed without him, and, if for any reason they are unable to appoint a new trustee in his place under Section 36(1) of the Act, the administration of the trust must 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, though such sanction or approval must be strictly proved.” [25]

In Kishore Joo Vs. Guman Behari Joo Deo[26] it has been held that all the trustees would join to file an application to execute the decree obtained on behalf of the idol of a temple.

• Chapter IX : Sections 80 to 96 : Constructive/Implied Trusts

What are called ‘constructive or implied trusts’ in English Law are included under the head “obligations in the nature of trust”, in the Indian Trusts Act, and are dealt with in Chapter IX, Sections 80 to 96, titled: “Of Certain Obligations in the Nature of Trust”.[27]

As per the definition of trust in Sec. 3 of the Indian Trusts Act the trustees must have ‘accepted’ the ‘obligations’ in the trust. Chapter IX, Sections 80 to 96 implies that certain persons are bound by the obligations in the nature of trust ‘for the benefit of another’.  Such instances of fiduciary obligations are founded either on implied intention, or on construction of law to meet the requirements of equity irrespective of implied intention.[28]

In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bansi  Dhar[29]  it was held that Section 83 of the Trusts Act merely reflects a rule of good conscience and of general application. No doubt, this proposition applies to other provisions in Chapter IX also.

Indian Trusts Act, Sec. 46 and 47:  Fiduciary Relationship

Sec. 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act[30] make it clear – a fiduciary relationship and duties attached thereto should not be allowed to be unilaterally terminated or varied.

Principles in Sec. 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act are applied to various affairs of fiduciary relationship,[31] and duties[32] attached thereto, by our Courts, as they contain the common law principles of the universal rules of equity, justice and good conscience upheld by the English judges. These principles would also apply with equal force to servants and, in fact, to anybody who has entered on another’s property in a fiduciary capacity.[33]It is held by our Apex Court in Marcel Martins Vs. M Printer  that the expression ‘fiduciary capacity’ is wider in its import.

Relying on Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Adiya Bando-padhyay[34]  it is held by our Apex Court in Marcel Martins Vs. M Printer[35] as under:

• “It is manifest that while the expression ‘fiduciary capacity’ may not be capable of a precise definition, it implies a relationship that is analogous to the relationship between a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in fact wider in its import for it extends to all such situations as place the parties in positions that are founded on confidence and trust on the one part and good faith on the other.”

The agent who holds the property for the principal  stands, in a fiduciary capacity and as a trustee; and he  has a duty and responsibility to make over the unauthorised profits or benefits he derived while acting as an agent, and he has to properly account for the same to the principal.[36]

Indian Trusts Act, S. 81 to 94:  Obligations ‘In the Nature of Trusts’

S. 81 to 94 of the Indian Trusts Act deal with obligations ‘in the nature of trusts’. As per the definition of trust in Sec. 3 of the Indian Trusts Act the trustee must have ‘accepted’ the ‘obligations’ in the trust. Sections 80 to 96 of the Indian Trusts Act imply that the persons specified in these sections are bound by the ‘obligations in the nature of trust’ ‘for the benefit of another’.  Such instances of fiduciary obligations are founded either on implied intention, or on construction of law to meet the requirements of equity irrespective of implied intention.[37]

Indian Trusts Act, Sec. 88 & 95: Apply to Directors & GB of Societies and Clubs

Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act expressly refers to director of a company. Though directors of a company are not express trustees with respect to their liabilities and disabilities, the Indian Trusts Act takes the position of a director of a company to that of trustees[38] in Chapter IX of the Indian Trusts Act (Section 80 onwards). Their office is fiduciary in character. They are bound by the directives in Sec. 88.

Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act reads:

• Advantage gained by fiduciary: Where a trustee, executor, partner, agent, director of a company, legal adviser, or other person bound in a fiduciary character to protect the interests of another person, avails himself of his character, and gains for himself any pecuniary advantage or, where any person so bound enters into dealings under circumstances in which his own interests are, or may be, adverse to those of such other person, and thereby gains for himself a pecuniary advantage, he must hold for the benefit of such other person the advantage so gained.

Palmer’s Company Law explained this position as under:

• “Directors are not only agents, but they are in some sense and to some extent trustees or in the position of trustees, but their position differs considerably from that of ordinary trustees, and the strict rules applicable to such trustees do not apply in all respects to directors. “

In VS Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. Brahmayya and Company Official Liquidators Hanuman Bank Limited[39] referring to Palmer’s Company Law, Charitable Corporation Vs. Sutton,[40] York and North Midland Ry. Vs. Hudson,[41] GE Ry. Vs. Turner,[42] In Re Forest of Dean Co.,[43] Buckley on the Companies Acts, Halsbury’s Laws of England, Gore-Browne, Handbook of Joint Stock Companies, Flitcroft’s case,[44] Ramskill Vs. Edwards,[45] In Re Faure Electric Accumulator Company,[46] Concha Vs. Murrieta,[47] In Re Lands Allotment Company,[48] etc. (which held that though the directors of a company were not trustees in the strict sense, they had always been considered and treated as trustees of money which came to their hands) it is held that the law in India regarding the nature of the liability of directors has not been different.

It is legitimate to comprehend that the words ‘or other person’ in Sec. 88 of the Indian Trusts Act encompass the governing bodies of societies and clubs also. By virtue of Sec. 95 of the Indian Trusts Act it is further clear that the principles and incidents of ‘trust’ are impressed upon the property held by societies and clubs also.

Sec. 95 of the Indian Trusts Act reads as under:

• 95. Obligor’s duties, liabilities and disabilities: The person holding property in accordance with any of the preceding sections of this Chapter must, so far as may be, perform the same duties, and is subject, so far as may be, to the same liabilities and disabilities as if he were a trustee of the property for the person for whose benefit he holds it  ….. “

The agent employed to purchase the property on behalf of his principal fraudulently got his name entered in the sale certificate. The agent was holding the property in trust on behalf of and for the principal, and the agent was under duty and responsibility to make good the unauthorised profits be derived in such capacity to the principal.[49]

Indian Trusts Act, Sec. 11 and 13

It is legitimate to comprehend that the principles in Sec. 11 and 13 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 as to duty of trustee to execute trust and protect and preserve trust property are applicable to the administrators of a society also.

Sec. 11 and 13 of the Indian Trusts Act reads as under:

• 11. Trustee to execute trust–The trustee is bound to fulfill the purpose of the trust, and to obey the directions of the author.
• 13. Trustee to protect title to trust property.—A trustee is bound to maintain and defend all suits, and to take such other steps as may be reasonably requisite for the preservation of the trust property.

Section 34: Direction of Court for Administration

Apart from Section 92 CPC, Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act provides for seeking permission of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction with respect to management of trust property.

S. 34 of the Indian Trusts Act reads:  

• 34. Right to apply to Court for opinion in management of trust property.—Any trustee may, without instituting a suit, apply by petition to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for its opinion, advice or direction on any present questions respecting the management or administration of the trust property other than questions of detail, difficulty or importance, not proper in the opinion of the Court for summary disposal. A copy of such petition shall be served upon, and the hearing thereof may be attended by, such of the persons interested in the application as the Court thinks fit. The trustee stating in good faith the facts in such petition and acting upon the opinion, advice or direction given by the Court shall be deemed so far as regards his own responsibility, to have discharged his duty as such trustee in the subject-matter of the application. The costs of every application under this section shall be in the discretion of the Court to which it is made.”

Similar provisions are contained in various (State) Public Trusts Acts for getting direction of the Court for the administration of the public trust.[50]

By virtue of Section 23 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 read with Section 95, the trustees/administrators who commit breach of trust are liable to make good the loss which the trust property or the beneficiaries have thereby sustained.

Section 23 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882  reads as follows:

• 23. 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, unless the beneficiary has by fraud induced the trustee to commit the breach, or the beneficiary, being competent to contract, has himself, without coercion or undue influence having been brought to bear on him, concerned in the breach, or subsequently acquiesced therein, with full knowledge of the facts of the case and of his rights as against the trustee.
• A trustee committing a breach of trust is not liable to pay interest except in the following cases:
• (a) where he has actually received interest;
•         (b) where the breach Consists in unreasonable delay in paying trust money to the beneficiary ;
• (c) where the trustee ought to have received interest, but has not done so;
• (d) where he may be fairly presumed to have received interest.
• He is liable, in case (a), to account for the interest actually received, and, in cases (b), (c) and (d) to account for simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, unless the Court otherwise directs, … …..”

S. 90 of the Indian Trusts Act directs that constructive trustees who gain advantages must hold the same for the benefit of all persons so interested.

S. 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882   states:

• 90. Where a tenant for life, co-owner, mortgagee or other qualified owner of any property, by availing himself of his position as such, gains an advantage in derogation of the rights of the other persons interested in the property, or where any such owner, as representing all persons interested in such property, gains any advantage, he must hold, for the benefit of all persons so interested, the advantage so gained, but subject to payment by such persons of their clue shares of the expenses properly incurred, and to cm indemnity by the same persons against liabilities properly contracted, in gaining such advantage.”

Even if the trust deed does not provide for sale of trust property, the court can grant permission if the court is satisfied that the sale is for the benefit of the trust.[51]

Provisions of Trusts Act Not Apply to Public Trusts: S. 77 and 78

As shown above, by virtue of Sec. 1 of the Trusts Act, 1882 the applicability of the Trusts Act is expressly excluded in the case of public or private religious or charitable endowments.

Therefore, the provisions of the Trusts Act as to ‘Trust how extinguished’ (Sec. 77) and ‘Revocation of trust’ (Sec. 78) do not apply to public or private religious or charitable endowments.

Sec. 77 reads as follows:

• 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 fulfilled of its purpose becomes impossible by destruction of the trust property or otherwise; or (d) when the trust being revocable, is expressly revoked.

Sec. 78 reads as follows:

• 78.  Revocation of trust. A trust created by will may be revoked at the pleasure of the testator. A trust otherwise created can be revoked only:
• (a) where all the beneficiaries are competent to contract by their consent; (b) where the trust has been declared by a non testamentary instrument or by word of mouth in exercise of a power of revocation expressly reserved to the author of the trust ; or (c) where the trust is for the payment of the debts of the author of the trust, and has not been communicated to the creditors at the pleasure of the author of the trust.

In Private Trusts Beneficiaries Can Give Consent on Certain Matters

Though the beneficiary has no proprietary or beneficial interest pertaining to owner, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, with regard to private trusts, 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 the trustee to transfer the 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.

---

[1] Sk. Abdul KayumVs. Mulla  Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309.

[2] State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bansi  Dhar: AIR 1974 SC 1084

[3] AIR 1974 SC 1084

[4]      Bai  Dosabai  Vs. Mathurdas  Govinddas: AIR 1980 SC 1334.

[5] See also: HEH The Nizams Pilgrimage Trust Vs. Commr of IT AP:  AIR 2000 SC 1802;

Kishore Joo Vs. GumanBehariJooDeo: AIR  1978 All 1;

Bonnerji Vs. Sitanath: 49 IA 46;

referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain ILR 1982- 1 Del 11;

Sk. Abdul Kayum Vs. Mulla  Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309;

Shivramdas Vs. B V Nerukar: AIR 1937 Bom 374;

Rambabu Vs. Committee of Rameshwar: (1899) 1 Bom LR 667;

Nathiri  Menon Vs. Gopalan Nair: AIR 1916 Mad 692.

[6]      AIR 1963 SC 309

[7]      Thayarmmal (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Kankammal, (2005) 1 SCC 457;

Sk. Abdul Kayum and ors. Vs. Mulla Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309.

[8]      Bai Dosabai Vs. Mathurdas Govinddas: AIR 1980 SC 1334.

[9]      AIR 1963 SC 309.

[10]    AIR 1974 SC 1084.

[11]    AIR 2000 SC 1802.

[12]    Chapter IX is titled: “Of Certain Obligations in the Nature of Trust”. 

See: Rotopacking Materials Industry Vs. Ravinder Kumar Chopra: 2003-6 BCR 6

[13]    Kishore Joo Vs. Guman Behari Joo Deo: AIR  1978 All 1;

Bapalal Godadbhai Kothari Vs. Charity Commissioner Gujarat: 1966  GLR 825

[14]    Shanti Vijay And Co Vs. Princess Fatima Fouzia: AIR1980 SC  17;

Sk. Abdul Kayum Vs. Mulla Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309; AIR 1952 Cal 350

[15]    Vrandan Bhaichand Shah Vs. Parshottam Motichand Shah: 1927 Bom 75.

[16]    Reserve Bank Of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry: AIR 2016 SC 1

[17]    Bonnerji  Vs.  Sitanath 49 IA 46:

Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain ILR 1982- 1 Del 11.

[18]    HEH The Nizams Pilgrimage Money Trust Vs. Commr, IT:  AIR 2000 SC 1802;

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.  Bansi  Dhar:  AIR 1974 SC 1084;

Kishore Joo Vs. Guman  Behari  Joo  Deo: AIR  1978 All 1.

BonnerjiVs. Sitanath: 49 IA 46:

Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain: ILR 1982- 1 Del 11;

Sk. Abdul Kayum  Vs.Mulla  Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309.

See also: Shivramdas Vs. B V Nerukar: AIR 1937 Bom 374;

Rambabu  Vs. Committee of Rameshwar: (1899) 1 Bom LR 667;

Nathiri  Menon Vs. Gopalan Nair: AIR 1916 Mad 692.

[19]    Balram  Chunnilal  Vs.Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81.

[20]    Bonnerji Vs. Sitanath 49 IA 46:

Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain ILR 1982- 1 Del 11.

[21]    Balram Chunnilal Vs. Durgalal Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81.

[22]    (2011) 8 SCC 497

[23]    AIR  2012 SC 1987

[24]    RV Sankara  Kurup  Vs. Leelavathy  Nambiar: AIR 1994 SC 2694

        See also: Balram  Chunnilal  Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81.

[25]    Referred to in Atmaram Ranchhodbhai Vs. Gulamhusein Gulam: AIR 1973 Guj 113

Man Mohan Das Vs. Janki Prasad, AIR 1945 PC 23

[26]    AIR 1978 All 1

[27]    See: Rotopacking Materials Industry Vs. Ravinder Kumar Chopra: 2003-6 BCR 6

[28]    Narayani Amma Vs Eyo Poulose: AIR 1982 Ker 198.

[29] AIR 1974 SC 1084

[30]    See Chapter: RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF TRUSTEES

[31]    Reserve Bank Of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry: AIR 2016 SC 1

[32]    Bonnerji  Vs.  Sitanath 49 IA 46:

Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain ILR 1982- 1 Del 11.

[33]    Balram  Chunnilal  Vs.Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81.

[34]    (2011) 8 SCC 497

[35]    AIR  2012 SC 1987

[36]    RV Sankara  Kurup  Vs. Leelavathy  Nambiar: AIR 1994 SC 2694

        See also: Balram  Chunnilal  Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81.

[37]    Narayani Amma Vs Eyo Poulose: AIR 1982 Ker 198.

[38]    See: V S Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. Brahmayya: 1966-36 Comp Cases 270, 1966-1 Mad LJ 234

[39]    1966-36 Comp Cases 270, 1966-1 Mad LJ 234

[40]    1742-2 Atk. 400

[41]    1853 16 Beav. 485

[42]    1872 L.R. 8 Ch. App. 149 

[43]    1878 (10) Ch(D) 450   

[44]    1882 (21) Ch(D) 519  

[45]    1885 Ch(D) 100

[46]    1889 L.R. 40 Ch(D) 141   

[47]    1889 L.R. 40 Ch(D) 543     

[48]    1894 L.R. 1 Ch(D) 616       

[49]    PV Sankara Kurup Vs. Leelavathy Nambiar: AIR 1994 SC 2694.

[50]    See MP Public Trust Act, 1951; Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950

[51]    Snehasagar Charitable Trust Vs. State:  ILR 2010 (2) Ker 738

---

---