A public or charitable trust does not require a formal deed for its creation. It may be inferred as a constructive trust through circumstantial evidence, including the history of the institution, the conduct of the parties, the nature of property usage, and the dedication of assets for public benefit.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

The appellants are plaintiffs 2,4,5,8,9 and respondents are defendants 1 to 14 and plaintiffs 1, 3, 6 and 7 in the suit O.S.No.10/1990 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur.

2. The plaintiffs claimed reliefs contemplated under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of a constructive Trust created for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature. Defendants 1 to 14, who are dealing with the plaint schedule properties which belonged to the trust, are allegedly guilty of breach of the stipulations of the trust, and the framing of a scheme is necessary for the due and proper administration of the trust. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed that the trustees be removed and they be directed to account for the properties and income which have come into their hands.

3. Appellants are members of a religious denomination known as "Brethren Assembly”. It is contended that the plaint schedule properties were acquired by one Mr.Nagel, a Christian Missionary who had come to India as a missionary of Basal Mission, and that during the course of his missionary activities, he acquired the properties, obtained funds from Christians and others, not for his personal benefit, but for missionary work. It is further contended that though the properties were acquired in his name, the same were in fact acquired for and on behalf of a trust created by him and were impressed with the character of a trust from the very inception.

3.1. It is alleged that two items of the plaint schedule properties were obtained by Mr. Nagel by way of gift and that such acquisitions were for the benefit of the Brethren Assembly, the members of which constituted the beneficiaries of the trust, thereby giving the trust a public religious and charitable character.

3.2. Mr. Nagel left for Germany and never came back to India, and thereafter Mrs. Nagel, acting as the power of attorney holder of Mr. Nagel was handling the properties, and she created Ext.A1 document and transferred the plaint schedule properties to the 1^st defendant/1^st respondent, a non-profit organisation incorporated in England. The plaintiffs would contend that such a transfer under Ext.A1 is void and inoperative since the properties were trust properties and could not have been alienated as if they were the personal properties of Mr. Nagel.

3.3. The 1^st respondent thereafter executed Ext.A8 Trust Transfer Deed, under which the properties were transferred to defendants 2/3 (respondents 2/3), which are only two addresses of one and the same entity, namely a society registered under the Indian Societies Registration Act under the name “Steward Association in India”. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, Ext.A8 also does not confer any valid title as the 1^st respondent had no authority to deal with the trust properties.

3.4. The appellants further contend that the plaint schedule properties continued to be trust properties dedicated for religious and charitable purposes and that defendants 1 to 4, who are in management and control of the properties, are guilty of breach of the stipulations of the trust and are acting against the interests of the trust. It is contended that there is total mismanagement of the affairs of the trust and that the properties are not being properly administered for the purposes for which they were dedicated.

3.5. It is further contended that defendants 2 and 3 have entered into arrangements to alienate portions of the plaint schedule properties to strangers, including the 8^th defendant, and that such acts are detrimental to the interests of the trust and amount to breach of trust.

3.6. Earlier, at the stage of grant of leave under Section 92 CPC, the trial court, by order dated 07.06.1984 in O.P. No.25 of 1982, had refused leave to institute the suit; however, this Court, by judgment dated 20.07.1990 in C.M.P. No.165 of 1984 in C.C. Baby and Ors. v. Steward Co. Limited and Others [MANU/KE/0391/1990], set aside the said order and granted leav