9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether some co-trustees can effectively determine a tenancy by giving notice to quit. 2. Whether a suit to evict a tenant can be filed by one or more co-trustees without joining other co-trustees in the suit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Determination of Tenancy by Co-Trustees The judgment clarifies that the determination of tenancy by giving notice to quit must be a joint action by all co-trustees unless the trust instrument provides otherwise or all beneficiaries, being competent to contract, consent to one trustee giving such notice. The court referenced the classic statement from Lewin on Trusts, asserting that co-trustees must act as a collective body, and duties must be executed jointly. The court emphasized that a trustee cannot delegate his duties to a co-trustee or any other person unless it falls within specific exceptions, such as necessity, consent from competent beneficiaries, or provisions in the trust instrument. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Abdul Kayum v. Alighai, reinforcing that trustees cannot transfer their duties unless permitted by the trust deed or agreed upon by all beneficiaries. The court further referenced the Privy Council's decision in K. S. Bannmerji v. Sitanath Das and the Calcutta High Court's decision in Gopal Sridhar Mahdev v. Sashi Bhusan Sarkar, which established that fiduciary duties, such as granting or determining a lease, cannot be delegated. Thus, the court concluded that one co-trustee cannot unilaterally give notice to quit to determine a tenancy. The decision must be taken jointly by all co-trustees, although the formal act of giving notice can be performed by one trustee with the approval of all co-trustees. Issue 2: Filing a Suit to Evict a Tenant The judgment asserts that all co-trustees must join in filing a suit to recover possession of property from a tenant after the lease is determined. This requirement stems from the nature and character of the office of co-trustees, as outlined in Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, which mandates joint execution of trust duties unless the trust instrument provides otherwise. The court reiterated that this principle applies equally to public religious or charitable trusts. The court referenced decisions such as Vedkannu v. Annadan Chatram and Ramesh Chandra v. Hemendra Kumar, which support the view that all co-trustees must join in such suits. The court also addressed the decision in Ishwardas v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, clarifying that it did not consider the question of whether a managing trustee could maintain an action without other trustees, and thus, it does not contradict the requirement for all co-trustees to join in filing a suit. In conclusion, the court held that unless the trust instrument provides otherwise, all co-trustees must join in filing a suit to evict a tenant. If any co-trustee is unwilling or unable to join as a plaintiff, they must be impleaded as defendants to ensure all co-trustees are before the court. Order: The court answered the questions accordingly and directed that the Special Civil Application be sent for hearing and final disposal by a single Judge of the High Court in light of the answers and observations made in the judgment.
|
