SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(AP) 163

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, T.NARSINGA RAO
PRINCESS FATHIMA FRONZIA - Appellant
Versus
SAYEED-UL-MULK ALIAS NAWAB SAHEB CHATTARI - Respondent
C. M. M. 147/78
Decided On : 06-12-78
Advocates Appeared :
.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, Order 1, Rules 8 and 10 Order 23, Rule 1-and Trusts Act, Section 61-Suit against trustees restraining them not to proceed with the sale of trust jewellary-Suit field by one of the beneficiaries-Suit in a representative capacity-maintainable-Withdrawal of appeal by one of the appellants. Court can allow one of the beneficiaries to continue the appeal by one of the appellants. Court can allow one of the beneficiaries to continue the appeal-Decision taken by some of the trustees to sell jewellery-Not binding on the other trustees.

       Held: If an appellant has an unconditional right to withdraw whether the grounds which have implied him to withdraw are proper or not, the Court cannot refuse permission to withdraw. But at the same time if the suit or proceeding is in effect a representative one, the appellant petitioner cannot thereby put an end to all the proceedings taken upto that point or that would be logically follow. The right of the appellant to withdraw the appeal is one thing and the power of the Court to allow another person, who has an interest similar to that appellant to continue the suit, appeal or proceeding is another. On account of such withdrawal, the suit or appeal does not terminate. It is the plaint duty of the court to implead the parties concerned either under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P.C. or in exercise of its undoubted inherent power under Section 151 civil procedure code further, Illustration (b) of Section 61 of the Trust Act makes it clear that when more than one beneficiary is entitled under a trust, one of the beneficiaries was competent to apply on behalf of the other as well. Such a proceeding would be therefore be a representative one.

       In the present case, as all the trustees were never called upon to deliberate and only some of the trustees who constitute a majority decided to accept a particular offer or negotiated price, that decision cannot be said to be the decision of the Board of Trustees so as to be binding on the trust or the minority of the other trustees who never participated in the decision. Before there could be binding contract between trust and the tenderers, the decision has to be reached by the Trust either to accept the tender or to negotiate for a higher price. There was no such decision in the case of the tenderers.

       C. M. A. allowed.

MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 565 of 78 dissolving the interim injunction issued by that Court on 14-3-1978 and dismissing the application for injunction. I. A. No. 565 of 1978 was made by the Appellant herein praying for an injunction "restraining the respondents herein from taking any further steps whatsoever by way of finalisation of tenders or in any other manner in the matter pertaining to the sale of jewellery as per Schedule-I of the trust deed known as H. E. H. The Nizam s Main Jewellery Trust dated 29th March, 1951, pending an application O. P. No. 141 of 1978 filed by him for the removal of the respondents-trustees.

( 2 ) H. E. H. Nizam, who was accepted by the Government of India to be the Owner of certain jewellery and other moveable property and certain securities created a trust of the said properties known as the Nizam jewellery Trust" under a Registered Trust Deed dated 29th March, 1951 for the benefit of his relatives specified in III Schedule to the Trust Deed. For the sake of brevity, this trust will be referred to hereinafter as the Jewellery trust or simply as the Trust". Respondents 1 to 5 are the present trustees of the said Jewellery Trust. There is no dispute that these respondents are legally appointed trustees of the said Trust in accordance with the Trust Deed. It is therefore unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal to notice the circumstances in which respondents 1 to 5 came to be appointed as trustees of the said Trust. There is also no dispute that the trustees are at preset authorised to sell the said jewels. The Trust Deed enjoins the trustees to hold the trust properties and among others direct them to sell the jewels specified in the I Schedule thereof, "after the death of the settlor as well as of his eldest sod Prince Azam Jah Bahadur within a period of three years. " That event has occurred. When the trustees appointed under the said Trest proceeded to bring to sale 37 items of Jewellery which form part of First schedule of trust Deed, Princess Fatima Fouzia, the eldest daughter cf Prince Mouzam jah Bahadur and grand-daughter of Nizam VII of Hyderabad, the Settlor filed a petition O. P. 141/78 to discharge the trustees. She is one of the eight beneficiaries mentioned in the Third Schedule Part I of the Trust Deed. The Principle Ground on which that petition was filed was that 107 items of Jewels mentioned in the First Schedule of the Trust Deed which includes the famous jacob Diamond are very valuable, but the Trustees are proceedings to dispose of the same in India by way of sale. It is alleged that the trustees have chosen to call for tenders from local jewellers and the local jewellers "have formed into a ring in collusion with Trustees". Although the jewellery is worth more than 100 crores of rupees, the amount offered by these jewellers in their tenders is hardly 20 crores of rupees. It is alleged that inspite of several requests, the Trustees have failed to comply with the request of the petitioner and husband for rendering account and furnishing information about the securities. This, according to her, is a dereliction of the Statutory duty on the part of the Trustees and constitutes mismanagement of the Trust properties. "the arbitrary and capricious manner in which these jewels are sought to be disposed of for a song" jeopardises the interest of the beneficiaries and causes them irreparable loss. She alleges that this is being done by the Trustees deliberately. She prays that the Trustees "should be directed to sell the jewellery in a proper legal manner taking into consideration the interest of all the beneficiaries". According to the petitioner, the jewels now sought to be sold in addition to their being very valuable by themselves are of rate antique value.

( 3 ) PENDING the petition for discharging the trustees, a petition I. A. 565/78 for restraining the respondent trust


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top