Person cannot approbate and reprobate; cannot challenge a trust deed amendment they participated in via a writ petition: Kerala High Court - 2025-10-07

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal of Plea Challenging School Manager's Appointment, Citing Estoppel and Nature of Dispute

Ernakulam, Kerala - The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling on the scope of writ jurisdiction, has dismissed a writ appeal concerning a family dispute over the management of an aided school. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.TH affirmed a single judge's decision, holding that disputes over the validity of a trust deed and its amendments are civil in nature and cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition, especially when the petitioner had previously consented to the changes.

The court invoked the legal principle that a person cannot "approbate and reprobate," meaning one cannot accept a transaction's validity to gain an advantage and later reject it to secure another.

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around the management of Kunhamutty Memorial High School (K.M. High School), founded in 1968 by Thandparakkal Muhammed. He remained the individual educational agency and Manager until his death in 2023.

In 2013, Muhammed established the Kottarakkad Charitable Trust. Subsequently, with the participation of his daughter, Shanitha T K (the appellant), the trust deed was amended to entrust the school's management to the trust, although the ownership of the property and the managership itself were not to be changed at that time.

Following Muhammed's death, the trust appointed his son (the 5th respondent) as the new Manager. This appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer but later set aside by the Director General of Education. However, the State Government, on revision, restored the appointment, leading Shanitha to file a writ petition in the High Court.

Arguments Before the Court

Appellant's Contentions (Shanitha T K): - Shanitha's counsel argued that her father never transferred the educational agency to the trust. - Upon his death, the educational agency devolved into a "corporate agency" comprising his legal heirs, who alone have the right to appoint a Manager under the Kerala Education Rules (KER). - The transfer of management to the trust was illegal as it violated Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, which requires prior permission from authorities for transferring school properties. - The Government's order upholding her brother's appointment was legally flawed.

Respondent's Contentions (The Brother): - The respondent’s senior counsel argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as its core was a challenge to a private trust deed, a matter for a civil court. - Critically, it was pointed out that the appellant had actively participated in the trust meetings in 2013 where the decision to entrust management to the trust was unanimously made. Having acquiesced for nearly a decade, she was now estopped from challenging it. - Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir , the counsel emphasized that the law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate.

Legal Principles and Precedents Applied

The Division Bench extensively relied on established legal doctrines to arrive at its conclusion:

• Approbate and Reprobate: The court quoted the Supreme Court, stating, "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage... and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage." The appellant’s participation in the 2013 meetings precluded her from challenging those decisions now.
• Acquiescence: Citing Union of India v. N. Murugesan , the court noted that the appellant’s passive acceptance and delay in raising objections for almost a decade amounted to acquiescence.
• Scope of Writ Jurisdiction: The Bench reiterated that writ courts do not adjudicate on complex factual disputes relating to property, status, or rights, which are the domain of civil courts. The judgment highlighted:

  "The dispute involved in this case is based on several factual issues... We concur with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the dispute raised by the appellant can be adjudicated only in a properly instituted civil suit."

Court's Final Decision

Finding no grounds to interfere with the single judge's "well-considered order," the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal. It concluded that the appellant's grievances concerning the validity of the trust deed, its amendments, and the consequent appointment of the manager must be addressed through a civil suit, not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The interim stay on the manager making new appointments was consequently lifted.