Trust powers must be exercised strictly; court jurisdiction cannot rewrite beneficial interests under administrative trust powers.

A reserved power in a trust deed must be exercised strictly within its terms, so a power limited to variation by will could not be used to alter beneficial interests by an inter vivos deed; the attempted second trust deed was therefore ineffective. The Court also lacked jurisdiction under the relevant trust statutes or inherent Chancery powers to authorise a substantive remoulding of the settlement, because those powers were confined to administration and management, not alteration of beneficial rights. An order made beyond that competence was void. The original settlement was restored subject to the limited consequential modifications directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the settlor could validly execute a second trust deed altering the beneficial interests by deed inter vivos under the power reserved in the original trust deed; (ii) Whether the order permitting such alteration and substitution of trustees was within jurisdiction under the Indian Trusts Act, the Official Trustees Act, the Trustees and Mortgagees Powers Act, or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Issue (i): Whether the settlor could validly execute a second trust deed altering the beneficial interests by deed inter vivos under the power reserved in the original trust deed.

Analysis: The reserved power in the original settlement was confined to variation of the beneficiaries' quantum of interest by will alone and not by any other mode. A power reserved in a trust deed must be exercised strictly in the manner and to the extent authorized by the donor of the power. A purported exercise by irrevocable deed where the power is limited to exercise by will is a matter of substance, not mere form.

Conclusion: The settlor had no authority to vary the beneficial interests by deed inter vivos, and the second trust deed was not validly executed on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether the order permitting such alteration and substitution of trustees was within jurisdiction under the Indian Trusts Act, the Official Trustees Act, the Trustees and Mortgagees Powers Act, or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: The statutory provisions relied upon conferred only a limited advisory or administrative jurisdiction concerning management or administration of trust property. They did not empower the Court to authorize remoulding of the beneficial trusts or to sanction a substantive alteration of the settlement. The inherent jurisdiction of the Chancery side was likewise confined to administrative powers in emergencies and did not extend to modifying beneficial interests. An order made without competence is void and open to challenge.

Conclusion: The order of Ramfry J. was outside jurisdiction and void.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the substantive questions, though the decree was adjusted on limited consequential matters, and the respondent's entitlement under the original settlement was restored subject to the modifications directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court exercising trust jurisdiction cannot authorize a substantive alteration of the beneficial terms of a trust unless such power is clearly conferred by the instrument or by statute; jurisdiction confined to administration or management cannot be expanded to remould the settlement.

---