1. Construction of a will — Claim for appointment of official trustee under Section 10, Official Trustees Act — Dispute over whether a trust or charge was created. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 426
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.SINHA, C.J.I., K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ.
Abinash Chandra Bannerji - Appellant
Versus
Uttarpara Hitkari Sabha - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1958 and Special Appeal No. 36 of 1955
Decided On : 18.4.1961.
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, C.P. Lal and G.C. Mathur, Advocate
For the Respondent:K.B. Bagchi, S.N. Mukherjee for P.K. Bose, Advocates
For the Appellant :A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, C.P. Lal and G.C. Mathur, Advocate
For the Respondent:K.B. Bagchi, S.N. Mukherjee for P.K. Bose, Advocates
The court distinguished between a trust and a charge, ruling that a permanent charitable bequest of a fluctuating portion of income, intended to be carried out perpetually, creates a fiduciary obligation (trust) rather than a mere security for payment (charge).
Headnote:(A) Official Trustees Act, 1913 - Section 10 - Construction of will - Trust vs. Charge - Distinction between a trust and a charge - A trust is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, for the benefit of another, imposing a fiduciary obligation in respect of the property; whereas a charge is created where property of one person is made security for the payment of money to another (Paras 4, 5).
(B) Charitable Trust - A charge may create a trust depending on the nature of the charge, particularly where the charity is intended to be permanent and the payment is directed to be made out of the income of the property to ensure the charitable object is not defeated (Paras 6, 8).
Facts of the case:
A testator executed a will providing for various bequests. Upon the occurrence of a specific contingency where neither the testator nor his nephew had issue, the property passed to the legal heirs subject to the payment of half of the net income to a charitable organization for specified purposes, including school fees for indigent boys and scholarships. The charitable organization sought the appointment of an official trustee under the Official Trustees Act, claiming that the will had created a trust.
Findings of Court:
The legal heirs took the property of the testator subject to a trust rather than a charge.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the will created a trust or a mere charge in favor of the charitable organization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the permanent nature of the charity, the fluctuating amount (half the net income), and the declared intention to ensure the charitable object was carried out perpetually indicated a fiduciary obligation. The court reasoned that the object would not be achieved if the beneficiary were placed in the position of a mere creditor with a charge on the property, as such a charge could be defeated by a bona fide purchaser for value.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the will created a trust allowing the invocation of the Official Trustees Act or merely a charge on the property in favor of the beneficiary. (Para 3 )
3. Analysis of the testator's intention to create a permanent charitable obligation, the nature of the bequests, and the distinction between fiduciary obligations and security for payment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. A trust is created where the testator's intention, gathered from the document's context, imposes a fiduciary obligation for charitable purposes rather than a mere security for payment. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court's finding that the will created a trust is upheld. (Para 10 )
6. What is the legal distinction between a trust and a charge on property?
A trust is an obligation annexed to property ownership arising from confidence reposed in the owner for another's benefit. A charge occurs when property is made security for the payment of money to another. (Para 4 )
7. Under what circumstances can a charge on property be construed as a trust?
A charge may create a trust depending on its nature, particularly when it imposes a fiduciary obligation or is intended for charitable purposes, such as payments to a fluctuating body of poor persons. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Are specific technical words required to create an express trust in a will?
No technical words are necessary; a trust may be created in any language sufficient to show the testator's intention, which must be gathered from a fair reading of the document. (Para 7 )
9. How is the intention to create a trust determined in the context of permanent charitable bequests?
Intention is gathered from the circumstances and recitals. If the charity is conceived as permanent and the payment is intended to be secured to prevent defeat by bona-fide purchasers, it constitutes a trust. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
Subba Rao, J.
1. This appeal by certificate raises the question of construction of a will executed by one Pyare Mohan Bannerji.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a small compass and they are as follows: Pyare Mohan Bannerji died in October 1874 leaving behind him considerable property. He executed a will dated February 12, 1874, making various bequests, including the payment of certain amounts to the first respondent, Uttarpara Hitakari Sabha. After his death, his widow held the property for life till her death on March 25, 1945. Thereafter, the property went into the possession of the appellants, who are the heirs at law of the testator. On March 17, 1950, the first respondent, Uttarpara Hitakari Sabha (hereinafter referred to as "the Sabha") filed an application in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 10 of the Official Trustees Act (Act 2 of 1913) claiming that the late Pyare Mohan Bannerji had created a trust by his will and praying that an official trustee be appointed to be the trustee of the properties of the trust. This was registered as Testamentary Case No. 9 of 1950. The appellants contested the claim of the Sabha and contended, inter alia, that no trust had been created by the testator and that the appellants, being the legal heirs of the testator, were entitled to succeed to the entire property left by him. Mootham, J., as he then was, who heard the said case at the first instance, held that by his last will Pyare Mohan Bannerji created a trust in favour of the Sabha, and appointed the Official Trustee a trustee of all the properties left by Pyare Mohan Bannerji specified in Schedule B to the petition. On appeal, a Division Bench of the said High Court, consisting of Malik, C.J., and Agarwala, J., agreed with Mootham, C.J., that the will created a trust in favour of the Sabha; but the learned Judges held that the Sabha was entitled only to a half share in the cash and properties pertaining to the estate of the said testator, and appointed the Official Trustee as trustee only in regard to the said share: on that basis, suitable directions were given. The first respondent accepted that position, but the appellants i.e. the persons claiming to be the heirs at law, preferred the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court insofar as it went against them.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that under the will not a trust but only a charge was created in favour of the first respondent and, therefore, the first respondent could not invoke in aid the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act reads:
"(1) If any property is subject to a trust other than a trust which the Official Trustee is prohibited from accepting under the provisions of this Act, and there is no trustee within the local limits of the ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court willing or capable to act in the trust, the High Court may on application make an order for the appointment of the Official Trustee by that name with his consent to be the trustee of such property."
It is common case that if the will created a trust, it would not fall under any one of the exceptions mentioned in the section. Therefore, the only question is whether the will created a trust or a charge in favour of the first respondent.
4. The concepts of trust and charge are well defined. A trust is "an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner". Where property "of one person is made security for the payment of money to another, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property". The boundaries between the two concepts are well demarcated; but, more often than not, courts found considerable difficulty in construing a particular document to place it in one or other of the categories. The same difficulty was encoun
