1958 Supreme(AP) 131

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Nori Venkata Rama Dikshitulu - Appellant
Versus
Ravi Venkatappayya - Respondent
Decided On : 08-22-58

The cy pres doctrine applies to trusts other than testamentary, where the general charitable intention be found to exist.

Headnote:

TRUST - DEDICATION OF LAND - CHARITABLE PURPOSE - CY PRES DOCTRINE - APPLICATION TO TRUSTS CREATED BY DEED - GENERAL CHARITABLE INTENTION - TRUSTEES' PERSONAL ADVANTAGE - RESUMPTION OF INAM LAND - EFFECT ON TRUST.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose over the nature of the dedication of S. No. 333 of Vatticheruku village, whether it was for raising Dharma Vanam or for public benefit. The land was originally owned by Nori Lakshmipathi Somayajulu, who had dedicated it to charity in 1788. The Inam Commissioner confirmed the dedication and granted a title deed to three persons, acknowledging their title to a Dharmadayam inam consisting of the right to the Government revenue on land claimed to be Acs. 8-42 cents dry and held for the public benefit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the entire land had been dedicated for the benefit of the public, not just the melwaram interest. The trustees had rendered themselves liable to be removed from their office and were to be replaced by others who would make genuine attempts to carry out the original objects of the trust. The court also held that the cy pres doctrine applied to trusts other than testamentary, where the general charitable intention be found to exist. In this case, such an intention was proved, as the object of the grantor appeared to be not to have only tamarind trees for the purposes of giving shade to the travellers and fruits to the poor, but to have trees that would achieve those objects. Therefore, difficulties in growing tamarind trees should not cause the property to revert.

Issues: 1. Whether the dedication of S. No. 333 of Vatticheruku village was for raising Dharma Vanam or for public benefit? 2. Whether the cy pres doctrine applies to trusts created by deed, where the general charitable intention be found to exist? 3. Whether the trustees' personal advantage can be derived from the administration of the trust property? 4. Whether the resumption of inam land frees the land from the trust and makes it the private property of the trustees?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the entire land had been dedicated for the benefit of the public, not just the melwaram interest. This was evident from the documentary evidence, the conduct of the trustees, and the use of part of the land for another charitable object. 2. The court held that the cy pres doctrine applies to trusts other than testamentary, where the general charitable intention be found to exist. This was supported by legal authorities and the principle that charitable trusts are an exception to the law of resulting trusts. 3. The court held that the trustees' personal advantage cannot be derived from the administration of the trust property. This was based on the general rule that trustees cannot gain personal profit by availing of their position. 4. The court held that the resumption of inam land does not free the land from the trust and make it the private property of the trustees. This was supported by legal authorities and the principle that trustees are bound to hold the land for the benefit of the trust.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs. The court directed the removal of the appellants and ordered the planting of other trees, should growing tamarind trees be found impossible.