Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
A. K. Sarkar
SUKHLAL CHANDANMULL KARNANI TRUST - Appellant
Versus
SHEW KUMAR KARNANI - Respondent
Suit 360 Of 1972
Decided On : APRIL 26, 1973
CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS TRUSTS ACT - APPOINTMENT OF NEW TRUSTEES - JURISDICTION - SUBSTANTIAL PART OF SUBJECT-MATTER SITUATE WITHIN JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF TRUST DEED - EXTENSION OF TRUST BEYOND SPECIFIED PERIOD - CONTINUANCE OF TRUST AFTER EXPIRY OF SPECIFIED PERIOD - CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST DEED AS A WHOLE - OPINION, ADVICE OR DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT - SUMMARY DISPOSAL OF QUESTIONS - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
An application was made under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, for opinion, advice, or directions regarding the management and administration of a trust created by an indenture dated June 29, 1946. The settlor, Indra Kumar Karnani, died on July 8, 1966, without appointing a new trustee in his place. The surviving trustees, Chhaganlal Kothari and Ratanlal Periwal, could not agree on the appointment of a new trustee. The respondent, Shew Kumar Karnani, the brother of the settlor, and the respondent, Jai Kumar Karnani, the eldest son of the settlor, expressed their desire to be appointed as trustees, but no appointment was made.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trust continued to exist after the expiry of the specified period of 20 years from July 1, 1946, as the settlor intended to extend the trust beyond that period. The court also held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application as a substantial part of the subject-matter of the trust was situate within its jurisdiction. The court further held that the questions raised in the application could be disposed of summarily without taking oral testimony.
Issues: 1. Whether the trust continued to exist after the expiry of the specified period of 20 years from July 1, 1946? 2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application? 3. Whether the questions raised in the application could be disposed of summarily without taking oral testimony?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the trust deed as a whole and found that the settlor intended to extend the trust beyond the specified period of 20 years. The court also found that the properties acquired and institutions founded during the continuance of the trust remained trust properties and would be administered as the trustees may decide. 2. The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application as a substantial part of the subject-matter of the trust was situate within its jurisdiction. The court interpreted the words "any substantial part of the subject-matter of the trust" in Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, to mean that the major part of the trust property need not be situate within the jurisdiction of the court. 3. The court held that the questions raised in the application could be disposed of summarily without taking oral testimony as they did not involve any disputed question of title or difficult question of construction of the trust deed or complicated questions of law.
Final Decision: The court appointed both the respondent, Shew Kumar Karnani, and the respondent, Jai Kumar Karnani, as the new trustees of the trust. The court also directed that the trustees, including the new trustees, would manage and administer the trust estates in accordance with the trust deed dated June 29, 1946.
( 1 ) THIS application is made under Charitable and Religious Trusts Act XIV of 1920 in the matter of Rai Bahadur Sukhlal Chandanmull Karnani Trust having office at No. 3, Synagogue Street in Calcutta within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Court. The settlor. Tndra Kumar Karnani who was also the managing Trustee, died on or about July 8, 1966 without appointing by Will or Deed any trustee in his place and on his death there remained only two trustees surviving viz. , the petitioner, Chhaganlal Kothari and the respondent No. 3, Ratanlal Periwal. The Indenture of Trust dated June 29, 1946 provided inter alia that, there shall not be more than five trustees nor there shall be less than three trustees and for appointment of new trustee according to the rules mentioned in Schedule IV to the said Indenture in case of a vacancy, except in case of the said Indra Kumar Karnani.
( 2 ) ON the death of the said Indra Kumar Karnani, who did not appoint any trustee by Will or Deed in his place, the surviving trustees thouch under the rules contained in Schedule IV to the said Indenture were empowered to choose and appoint trustee in place of the said Indra Kumar Karnani deceased, any member of the settlor's family in the male line and though the respondent No. 1, Shew Kumar Karnani and No. 2, Jai Kumar Karnani, the brother and the eldest son respectively of the said Indra Kumar Karnani and both members of the settlor's family in the male line expressed their desire in writing to be appointed as such trustee or trustees, could not agree upon as to who should be appointed as new trustee and if appointed whether the same would be valid. In the result no appointment was made, inconveniences and various difficulties were gradually being felt in the management and administration of the said Trust Estate.
( 3 ) ONE of the two surviving trustees viz. , Chhaganlal Kothari in September, 1972 made this application for inter alia certain opinion and/or advice and/or directions for appointment of a new trustee or trustees for proper management and administration of the Trust Estate.
( 4 ) MR. Somnath Chatlerjee appearing for the petitioner made this application.
( 5 ) MR. Anindya Milter appearing for the respondent No. 1, Shew Kumar Karnani supported the application and Mr. Tapas Kumar Roy appearing for the respondent No. 2, Jai Kumar Karnani also supported the application.
( 6 ) MRS. Manjula Bose appearing with Miss Manju Rai Choudhury for the respondent No. 3, Ratanlal Pcriwal opposed the application.
( 7 ) MRS. Manjula Bose, the learned counsel opposing this application urged the following points:-- (1) The application is made under the provisions of Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (Act XIV of 1920) which provides for (a) an application by a trustee, (b) by a petition to the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any substantial part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, (c) for opinion, advice or direction of the Court, (d) on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property.
( 8 ) MRS. Bose contended that since the death of Indra Kumar Karnani on 8th July, 1966 nothing happened, the trusts have not been carried out as it came to an end. She further contended that in this application under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 the Court cannot decide that there exists a Trust which requires directions and/or advice for management or administration.
( 9 ) THE Trust was made for a period of twenty years from 1st July, 1946 at the first instance for certain Charitable and Religious purposes for the benefit of the Hindu Public to perpetuate the memory of the settlor's late illustrious grandfather, Rai Bahadur Seth Sukhlal Karnani and his late father, Rai Saheb Chandanmull Karnani. The use of the words "at the first instance" at several places in the said Indenture in my view, implied the intention of the settlor that the trust will
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
