Charitable trusteeship is not alienable; trust suits require all co-trustees on record, and de facto office creates no standing.

A transfer deed concerning a charitable endowment was construed as conveying not only the property but also the right to manage and conduct the charity, because the document treated the bargain as an entire transaction and expressly negatived any continuing claim by the transferor. The purported sale of the office of trustee for consideration was held invalid, as trusteeship in a charitable or religious endowment is not freely alienable and cannot be transferred for personal benefit. Suits relating to trust property were also held not maintainable without all co-trustees or their representatives on record, and a de facto trustee was found to have no enforceable locus standi by merely assuming office.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the deed of transfer conveyed the right to manage and conduct the charity in addition to the properties; (ii) whether a trustee of a charitable endowment can validly alienate the office of trusteeship for consideration; and (iii) whether the suits were maintainable in the absence of the co-trustee or his heirs, and whether a de facto trustee could maintain them.

Issue (i): whether the deed of transfer conveyed the right to manage and conduct the charity in addition to the properties.

Analysis: The recitals and operative language of the document showed that the bargain was not confined to the property alone. The deed stated that the properties were sold with absolute rights, referred to the convenience of the charities being conducted if the share were added, and expressly declared that the transferor would have no claim in respect of the properties or the duty or right of conducting the charities. The transaction was treated as an entire contract, not severable into a sale of property alone and something else.

Conclusion: The right of management and conduct of the charity was intended to be transferred along with the property.

Issue (ii): whether a trustee of a charitable endowment can validly alienate the office of trusteeship for consideration.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that the office of trustee in a charitable or religious endowment is not freely alienable by act of parties. The authorities relied on recognized that trusteeship is a joint office held for the institution and that public policy is opposed to its sale or transfer for personal benefit. A transfer made for consideration in order to divest the transferor of the office was treated as legally impermissible.

Conclusion: The alienation of the trusteeship was invalid and conferred no right on the transferee.

Issue (iii): whether the suits were maintainable in the absence of the co-trustee or his heirs, and whether a de facto trustee could maintain them.

Analysis: Co-trustees were held to form a joint and indivisible trustee body, so proceedings concerning trust property could not be maintained by only some of them without the others being on record either as plaintiffs or defendants. The Court also rejected the contention that a de facto trustee acquires enforceable rights merely by acting as such, holding that such a person is at most a trustee de son tort and cannot create a right in himself to sue. The late request to implead the omitted co-trustee's heirs was declined in view of the long delay and the manner in which the objection had been met throughout the litigation.

Conclusion: The suits were not maintainable and the plea of de facto trusteeship did not save them.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the decree of the court below was reversed, and the suits were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A trustee of a charitable endowment cannot validly sell or alienate the office of trusteeship, and a suit concerning trust property must be instituted by all co-trustees or their representatives, since a de facto trustee acquires no locus standi by wrongful assumption of the office.

---