( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against ajudgment dated 2nd November, 1981. deciding Suit No. 373/67 (on the Original Side of this Court ). The Suit in question was instituted by three residents of Model Town, Delhi, to claim a declaration and injunction concerning some land situated in Model Town. It maybe recalled that Model Town was developed as a colony by M/s. Delhi Land and Finance Private Limited. The name of that company was changed later to DLF United Private Limited and now the present appellant is DLF Universal Limited, which is described as the successor company. In that colony, plots were sold to various persons for building their private houses. In the lay-out plan of the colony, certain land had been set aside for various purposes, such as streets, parks, schools, markets, and. so on. Two of the sites which were shown as ear-marked for public building and measured 05 were the subject-matter of the Suit from which this appeal has arisen.

( 2 ) THESE two plots were sold by DLF (for short) to M/s. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust by a sale-deed dt. 28th October, 1965. In the Suit, the trustees of that Trust are impleaded as defendants Nos. 12, 13 and 14. The said trustees had executed a lease-deed dated 30th September, 1966, in favour of Jain Sabha Dharamarth Trust and Aggarwal Dharmarth Trust concerning one of the plots. The trustees of these Trusts are impleaded as defendants No. I toll in the Suit. The remaining defendant is the Delhi Land and Finance Private Limited. The other plot was retained by the Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust.

( 3 ) AS discussed in the judgment under appeal, the question in the Suit was whether M/s. DLF were entitled to sell land which was ear-marked for public building in the lay-out plan. According to the learned Single Judge, the car-marking of the land in this manner created a trust and M/s. DLF were not entitled to sell the land. It is also the undeniable case that the land was sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00.

( 4 ) NOW it has to be seen why the Court held that there was a trust. According to the learned Judge, reference to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, is necessary. Reference was made to Sections 312 and 313 of the Act, which shows that a lay-out plan has to be sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In Section 313 (1) (b) of the Act, it is provided that the owner shall show in the lay-out plan the reservation of plots for streets, open space, park, recreation ground, school, market or any other public purpose. According to the learned Single Judge, the setting aside of the land for any public purpo creates a trust.

( 5 ) THOUGH elaborate reasons have been given by the learned Single Judge, we fail to understand how a trust can be created in this manner. In order there be a trust, there has to be a confidence reposed in some other. The nature of a trust requires a transfer to the trustees to hold property for a particular purpose. A mere declaration by the owner that he will hold land for a public purpose does not mean that a trust is created. There is no transfer, there is no confidence and there is no beneficiary. All the features that are requisite for a trust are lacking.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge realised this difficulty and, therefore, turned to the definition of a constructive trust. According to him, a constructive trust is one which comes into being by operation of law. It is then observed that the present arrangement is more of a resulting trust. Various judgments of the English Courts have been referred to concerning the features of a constructive trust and a resulting trust. According to the learned. Single Judge:

"its forms and varieties are practically without limit. It is raised by a court of equity whenever it becomes necessary in justice and good conscience that such a trust should exist. The categories of constructive trusts are never closed. "according to the learned Judge, it would be against conscience to bold that