Back
1982 Supreme(Del) 12
High Court Of Delhi
R.P.KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
KAUSHALYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST - Respondent
Civil 2 of 1981
Decided On : 01/21/1982
R.P.KAPUR, S.C.SINGHA
A trust created for the benefit of the settler's family, children and descendants is a private trust and not a public trust of a charitable nature.
Headnote:
KAUSHALYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST - PUBLIC TRUST - SECTION 92, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - PRIVATE TRUST - AMENDMENT OF OBJECT CLAUSE - VALIDITY - URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 19(IV) - EXEMPTION - TRUSTEES' POWER TO DISSOLVE TRUST - DUTY OF TRUSTEES - BREACH OF TRUST - LEAVE TO INSTITUTE SUIT - REVOCATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff R. P. Kapur filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Kaushalya Educational Trust and its trustees, alleging misappropriation of trust properties and seeking directions for the administration of the trust and framing of a scheme. The defendants resisted the grant of leave on the ground that the trust was not a public trust of a charitable nature as alleged by the plaintiffs and that Section 92 did not apply.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Kaushalya Educational Trust was a private trust and not a public trust of a charitable nature. The amendment of the original trust deed by a supplementary deed was void and of no effect. The trust remained a family trust. A suit under Section 92 could not be maintained in the case of a private trust. The court revoked the leave granted to the plaintiffs to institute the suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, and rejected the plaint.
Issues: 1. Whether Kaushalya Educational Trust was a public trust of a charitable nature? 2. Whether the amendment of the original trust deed by a supplementary deed was valid? 3. Whether the trust remained a family trust? 4. Whether a suit under Section 92 could be maintained in the case of a private trust?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trust was a private trust and not a public trust of a charitable nature because: - The primary object of the trust was the aggrandizement of the family. - The benefit which was reserved for the public under the trust deed was much too remote and much too illusory to hold that this is a public trust of a charitable nature. - The settler desired that her descendants should have the benefit in the main and if there was anything left over, then alone it could be applied to charitable and cultural purposes. 2. The court held that the amendment of the original trust deed by a supplementary deed was void and of no effect because: - The trustees had no power to amend the objects of the trust. - The settlor had manifested her intention in the trust instrument. - The beneficiaries had not consented to the change. 3. The court held that the trust remained a family trust because: - The primary purpose of the settler was to benefit her descendants. - The amendment of the object clause was invalid. 4. The court held that a suit under Section 92 could not be maintained in the case of a private trust because: - Section 92 applies only to public trusts of a charitable nature. - Kaushalya Educational Trust was a private trust.
Final Decision: The court revoked the leave granted to the plaintiffs to institute the suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, and rejected the plaint.
( 1 ) THE founding deed : This is a dispute between father on the one side and mother and sons on the other, The plaintiff Shri R. P. Kapur has instituted asuit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against a trust styled Kaushalya. Educational Trust and its trustees, Shrimati Sheila Kapur, his wife and Lov alias Vivek Kapur and Ashok Kapur, his sons. His wife and two sons are the trustees. They are defendants to the suit. The plaintiff, R. P. Kapur, along with one another person has sought directions for the administration of the trust and for framing a scheme.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs urge that Kaushalya Educational Trust is a trust of a public character of a Charitable nuture and that the trustees are misappropriating the trust properties. They have alleged various misdeeds of the trustees. As required by the amended Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure leave of the Court is sought to institute the suit. The defendants resist the grant of leave on the ground that the trust is not a public trust of a charitable nature as alleged by the plaintiffs and that Section 92 does not apply. By an application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants say that the exparte leave granted by the learned Additional District Judge, who was seized of the suit, should be revoked and the jurisdictional fact regarding the public nature of the trust should first be determined. The principal question therefore for decision is whether Kaushalya Educational Trust is a public trust established for charitable purposes.
( 3 ) SHRIMATI Kaushalya Devi was the mother of Mrs. Sheila Kapur and mother-in-law of Shri R. P. Kapur. She owned 8 bighas 13 biswas of land in village Kharera, Tehsil Delhi bearing Khasra Nos. 373, 374 and 694|375. These become plots Nos. 3,4,5. and 6 in the sanctioned lay out of Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas. New Delhi. She was nearly 70 years of age and found it difficult to manage her affairs single handedly. Under Section 6 of the Indian trust Act (the Act) she created a trust called kaushalya Educational Trust . On January 20. 1972, she executed a deed of trust which was duly registered. The objects of the trust were stated in clause 6. I will state them in the author s own words : 6. Objects : That the said Trust is being created mainly for the purpose of providing education, upbringing, marriage, maintenance in case of need, etc. of the descendants of the Author of the Trust and for providing charitable and culttural facilities to others as the trustees may decide from time to time. "
( 4 ) KAUSHALYN Devi appointed helself, her daughter Mrs. Sheila Kapur, and her grand son Lov Kapur as trustees. It is provided in the deed that after her death her other grand son. Ashok Kapur, will take her place as a trustee. Clause 14 of the trust deed provides that in the even of the demissed of the author of the trust.
"if the trustees including the substitute Trustee, Shri Ashok Kapur. decide to disselve the Trust, they shall have the power to do so and apportion the assets and liabilities in such manner as they choose to decide. "
( 5 ) SO we find that Shrimuti Kaushalya was the author of the Trust. Plots Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 were the trust property. The object of the trust was "mainly" the maintenance of author s descendants. In the trust instrument there is an allusion to an agreement dated July 20. 1959. But for purposes of determining the nature of the trust it is not necessary to refer to it. The golden rule is look at the trust instrument always,
( 6 ) IN 1979 the trustees submitted plans for building houses on the said plots to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. These were rejected on the ground that the land was in excess of the limits laid down by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Ceiling Act ). The four plots were admeasuring 900, 910, 930 and 940 sq. yards. These being in excess of the limits of the land which a person could own, the Corporation did not s
