Back
1992 Supreme(Del) 287
High Court Of Delhi
P.C.ALEXANDER - Appellant
Versus
GOVERMENT OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 1348 of 1992
Decided On : 05/19/1992
K.K.VENUGOPAL, LIRA GOSVAMI
Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 empowers the court to issue directions on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property, including the appointment of additional trustees, where necessary for the proper management and administration of the trust.
Headnote:
CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS TRUSTS ACT, 1920 - SECTION 7 - AMENDMENT OF TRUST DEED - INCREASE IN NUMBER OF TRUSTEES AND DELETION OF PROVISO RESTRICTING REAPPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7 - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE COURT'S POWERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, trustees of the Nehru Trust for Cambridge University, sought directions from the court under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, for the proposed amendment of clauses 8 and 12 of the Trust Deed dated June 28, 1983. The proposed amendments aimed to increase the number of Trustees from eleven to fifteen and delete the proviso to clause 12, which restricted the reappointment of Trustees who had served for nine years.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 7 of the Act conferred jurisdiction on the court to issue directions on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property, including the appointment of additional trustees. The court found that the proposed amendments were necessary for the proper management and administration of the trust, given the growing activities and quantum of work.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act to issue directions regarding the proposed amendment of the Trust Deed, including the increase in the number of Trustees and the deletion of the proviso restricting reappointment. 2. Whether the proposed amendments were necessary for the proper management and administration of the trust.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 7 of the Act broadly, holding that the expression "on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property" was wide enough to confer the power to issue directions regarding the appointment of additional trustees. 2. The court found that the proposed amendments were justified, considering the growing activities and quantum of work of the trust, and the need for a more broad-based and experienced group of Trustees to ensure continuity in the management of the trust's affairs.
Final Decision: The court directed that the amendments to clauses 8 and 12 of the Trust Deed, as proposed by the petitioners, could be made.
( 1 ) THE petition is under Section 7 of the Chartitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter called the Act ). It relates to (lie Nehru Trust for Cambridge University (hereinafter called the Trust ). The petitioners are its trustees and are seeking direction with regard to the proposed amendment of clauses 8 and 12 of the Trust Deed dated June 28, 1983.
( 2 ) CLAUSES 8 and 12 of the Trust Deed of June 28, 1983 are extraeted below :
8. "there shall initnally be eleven Trustees of the Trust. Out of the said eleven Trustees of the said Trust Four Trustees shall be nominees of the Cainbridge Commonwealth Trust and two Trustees of the said Trust shall be nominees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund. At the first meeting of the Trustees appointed by these presents, the Trustees shall nominate a twelfth Trustee, who shall have the same power and duties andt obligations under hese presents. TMe said twelfth Trustee shall retire with the Trustees in. part 11 of the Schedule hereinafter. 12. A. retiring Trustee shall be eligible for reappoinment. PROVIDED THAT no Trustee shall be eligible for reappointment as a Trustee if he has been a Trustee, for nine years prior to his proposed reappointment. "
( 3 ) THE petitioners propose to Increase the number of Trustees from eleven to eleven and seeks to delete the proviso to clause 12. The proposed amended clauses 8 and 12 are set out below :
"8. There shall initially be fifteen Trustees of the said Trust. Oat of the said fifteen Trustees of the said Trust 5 Trustees shall be nominees of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and 2 Trustees of the said Trust shall be ndminees of. the. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund. The remaining" 8 trustees shall be elected in accordance with clause II of these presents. 12. A retiring Trustee shall be eligible for reappointment. "
( 4 ) DOES the petition with recard to the proposed amendment of clause 18 fall within the ambit and scope of section 7 of the Act ? If so, have the petitoners made out a case for the issuance of the direction sought for by them?
( 5 ) IT is significant to note that whereas. section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically envisages the appoiniment of new trustees which may include appointment of additional trustees as well, section 7 of the Act speaks only of seeking "the opinion, edv) se or direction of the Court on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property". Does it mean that the court, while acting under Section 7 of the Act. can issue directions with regard to appointment of additional trustess ? The answer, I have no doubt, must be in the negative for the simple reason that "on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property" is an expression wide enough to confer such power.
( 6 ) I may mention that similar question arose in Rameshwardas Biria and Oi. ". . v. Advocate General of West Bengal (1957) 99 Cal. L. J. 161 (1 ). Dealing with the contention that Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was the more appropriate legal provision and that section 7 of the Act did not confer any power on the Court to appoint a new trustee it was observed :
"it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that in a case where there is no dispute, a suit cannot be filed. The difficulty, it is urged, would be in finding two persons who would take the trouble of filing a suit wherein they have nothing to stake. Possibly, The difficulty might be obviated if the Advocate-General were himself to file a suit against the trustees. I do not know why he should file such a suit. He could not certainly be compelled to do so. In order to be satisfied that such a step was necessary, he would have to examine the detailed working of the trust in order to be able to find out whether an increase in the number of trustees was really be useful for such a purpose. Moreover this is not the case of any breach of trust. The first portion of section 92 of the C. P. Code has no applic
