P.C. Alexander And Ors. vs Government Of India
1992 Latest Caselaw 331 Del

JUDGMENT

Jaspal Singh, J.

(1) The petition is under Section 7 of the' Charitable 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 extracted below : 8."There shall initially be eleven Trustees of the Trust. Out of the said eleven Trustees of the said Trust Four Trustees shall be nominees of the Cambridge 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 and 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 nominees 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 record to the proposed amendment of clause 18 fall within the ambit and scope of section 7 of the Act ? If so, have the petitioners 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 appointment 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 trustees ? 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 & 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 application. That being so the court can only appoint new trustees because a direction in that behalf is deemed necessary for the administration of the trust. Applications for such direction can be made under section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act. The only difference between the two above mentioned statutory provisions is that one mentions expressly the appointment of new trustees as a relief to be had while the other is silent on the point. But the jurisdiction of the Court is exercisable only for the proper management of the trust. When there no dispute which normally calls for adjudication by way of a suit. I am inclined to think that section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act is the more appropriate provision of law."

(7) The petitioners have pointed out that the increase in the number of Trustees "has been necessitated due to the growing activities and quantum of work of the trus and to make it. more broad based." The affidavit of J.B. Dadachanji who is the Secretary of the Trust lends support to this assertion. The direction sought thus relates to a question "affecting the management and administration" of the trust property and, for what has been recorded by me above, I see no reason why the court should not issue the direction.

(8) With regard to the proposed amendment of Clause 12 the petitioners claim that the deletion of the proviso to clause 12 is proposed as it is "desirable in the public interest and the better management and administration of the trust that the services and rich experience of those trustees who have made valuable contribution to the activities of the Trust continue to remain available to the trust and there is an element of. continuity in the management of the affairs of the trust." I have no reason to disagree.

(9) I direct that amendments of clauses 8 and 12 of the Trust Deed dated June 28, 1983 may be made as per the amendments proposed in paragraph 7 of the petition.