This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 24-10-2008 passed in I.A.No.787 of 2007 in O.S.No.199 of 2007 by the VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam.

2. The facts stated are:- Faza Foundation Trust-revision petitioner herein filed the above application under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to permit Mr. Munnavar H. Mehdi, s/o. late Hussain S. Mehdi, who is one of the attorneys of 2 defendant under Power of Attorney dated 29-8-2007, to attend to all the legal matters relating to 2 defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner being a trust called Faza Foundation Trust, since there is no prohibition, as such, to appoint a power of attorney under Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, the Court below ought to have allowed the application. Learned counsel also contended that mere conferring of powers on the power of attorney does not amount to abdication of powers and duties by the trustee and a trustee of a Trust has power to appoint an attorney to represent the trust. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as no reasons are stated by the Trustee in seeking to delegate his functions to an absolutely stranger and there was no resolution of the trust delegating such functions to an attorney the Court below rightly dismissed the application.

I 4. Faza Foundation Trust is stated to be a charitable trust situated its office at Visakhapatnam. It has come on record that the trustee and the power of attorney sought to be appointed reside at Visakhapatnam in the same town. A person representing the Trust, it is necessary, that he must know I about the affairs of the Trust and as far as possible he must have personal knowledge of day to day activities of the Trust.

5. The rules against renunciation of the trust by a trustee and against delegation of his functions by a trustee are embodied in Sections 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act. These sections read thus:-

"46. 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.

47. A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties either to a cotrustee 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."

6. The Apex Court in Abdul Kayam v. Alighai, dealing with an identical issue, held thus:-

"...... trustees cannot transfer their duties, functions and power 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. A person who is appointed 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. Nor can a trustee delegate his duties or any of the functions except in some specific cases..........."

7. This Court is Sree Mukhya Pranaswami v. TK Raghavendra Rao 1996 (3) ALT 1112 = 1997 (4) ALD 244 dealing with a similar issue at paras 11 and 12 held thus:-

"The explanation to Section 47 specifically provides that the appointment of an attorney or proxy to do an act merely ministerial and involving no independent discretion is not a delegation within the meaning of the section. Illustration (b) to Section 47 shows that when a trustee of certain property has got power to sell the same, he may employ an auctioneer to effect such sale without having the necessity of himself conducting the sale. Illustration (c) to Section 47 conveys the impression th