JUDGMENT - S.M. Daud, J. :--- An issue of some consequence debated fully before this Court, though not raised in the forum below is the subject of this order.

The appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit in the City Civil Court (City Court) Bombay for a declaration and injuction alleging Breach of Trust by Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) vis-a-vis property known as Dhan Bhavan and by the induction of Respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 4) as a trustee of the Bai Dhankorabi Morarji Thakoriji Trust (trust). Interim reliefs were claimed by way of the appointment of a Receiver to take over the trust property and an injunction to restrain defendants from using or dealing with the said property through a motion. The same having been dismissed, plaintiff has come in appeal. The issue under consideration is whether the City Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. If the answer to the issue be in the negative, the order impugned in appeal will naturally not survive.

3. Plaintiff a co-trustee of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 complains of defendant No. 1 with the aid of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 misusing her position as a managing trustee. Defendant No. 1 has got the plaint defendant No. 2 and 3 to pass a resolution granting a lease of Dhan Bhavan to herself at the trivial rent of Rs. 500/- per month. Even that trifling sum was reduced to nothing by a later resolution. Plaintiff as a trustee was not a party to either the lease or the no-rent resolutions. In fact defendant No. 1 as a trustee could not take trust property on lease or make any against out of trust property. Defendant No. 4's appointment was illegal as he i.e., plaintiff had not consented to the same. Declarations were sought to nullify resolutions granting Dhan Bhavan on lease to defendant No. 1, appointment of defendant No. 4 as a trustee and that defendant No. 1 had committed several breaches of trust vis-a-vis the trust deed and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Trusts Act). The jurisdiction clause in the plaint ascribes jurisdiction to the City Court because the actionable causes had occurred within the territorial limits thereof. The pecuniary value of the suit was placed at Rs. 300/- and Court fee of Rs. 30/- was paid on the plaint.

4. The question arising is whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of the City Court. The trust figuring in the suit is a private trust governed by the terms of the trust deed and the Trusts Act. This Act does not in terms signify the forum for suits alleging breach of trust and redress therefor. However, several section in the Act ordain access to a 'Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction' (Principal Court) for various matters. Section 7 which deals with persons competent to create a trust prescribes the permission of the said Court when the creation is by or behalf of a minor. Section 11 which permits a modification of the purpose of trust and the directions of the author with the consent of all beneficiaries competent to contract, allows such a Court to give consent for a beneficiary incompetent to contract. A trustee directed to sell within a specified time will get exoneration of the charge of prejudice when the Principal Court authorises extension of time vide section 22. A trustee's right to reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred for the trust goes beyond a mere charge if the expense has been incurred with the sanction of this Court under section 32. Section 36 lays a restraint upon a trustee vis-a-vis lease of trust property for a term exceeding 21 years or without reserving yearly rent except with the permission of the principal Court. Section 41 empowers this Court to permit application of corpus, wholly or in part, where the income therefrom is insufficient for trusts of certain types. One of the 3 ways enabling a trustee to renounce a trust after acceptance is with the permission of the Court under section 46. Unreasonable and mala fide exercise of discretionary power of a trustee can be controlled by a Pri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document