Invalid Trustees Removed, New Appointments Ordered, Costs Awarded

The Supreme Court held that defendants 1 to 11 were not validly appointed trustees under the trust deed and ordered their removal from managing trust properties. They were directed to account for their administration and pay costs to the plaintiffs. The Court set aside the decree against defendants 12 to 17, as no relief was sought against them. New trustees were to be appointed for trust administration, as most original trustees were deceased or unable to continue. Appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointment of trustees under the trust deed dated 15-09-1909.
2. Allegation of breach of trust by the trustees.
3. Legality of the Trial Court's decree against defendants 12 to 17.
4. Requirement of framing a scheme for the administration of the trust.
5. Appointment of new trustees for the administration of the trust.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Appointment of Trustees:
The principal question in controversy was whether defendants 2 to 11 were validly appointed trustees under the trust deed dated 15-09-1909. The Trial Court held that the trustees had the power to appoint new trustees, register the society, and frame rules and regulations for the management of the school and its properties. The Court concluded that the registration of the society and the formation of its management committee were acts done by the trustees to secure more efficient management of the trust property. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that trustees cannot transfer their duties, functions, and powers to another body of men unless clearly permitted by the trust deed or agreed to by the beneficiaries. The Court found that the trust deed did not authorize the trustees to abdicate in favor of another body of persons or to substitute the old trustees with a new body. Therefore, the act of the trustees in handing over the management of the school to the Hakimia Society and the properties to its governing body was illegal and void. Consequently, defendants 1 to 11 were not validly appointed trustees.

2. Allegation of Breach of Trust:
The Trial Court addressed the allegations of breach of trust, including the use of trust properties for litigation and the admission of non-Bohra students. The Court found that the governing body did use trust properties for litigation not benefiting the school but did not consider it misappropriation as the trustees believed they were acting in the school's interest. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into these findings, as the invalid appointment of trustees warranted their removal regardless of the alleged breaches.

3. Legality of the Trial Court's Decree Against Defendants 12 to 17:
The appeal by defendants 12 to 17 contended that the Trial Court erred in granting a decree against them when no relief was sought against them in the plaint. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the plaintiffs did not ask for any relief against defendants 12 to 17, and thus, the courts below acted illegally in passing any decree against those defendants. The appeal by defendants 12 to 17 was allowed.

4. Requirement of Framing a Scheme for the Administration of the Trust:
The plaintiffs initially sought the framing of a scheme for the administration of the trust. However, during the proceedings, it was admitted that framing a scheme was not necessary, at least for the present. The Supreme Court agreed with this admission and did not order the framing of a scheme.

5. Appointment of New Trustees for the Administration of the Trust:
Given that all but one of the original 18 trustees were deceased and the sole survivor was too old to carry on the administration, the Supreme Court directed that new trustees be appointed. The Trial Court was instructed to appoint suitable persons as new trustees after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs and other responsible members of the Daudi Bohra Community to place their recommendations and objections.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, declaring that defendants 1 to 11 were not validly appointed trustees and ordering their removal from the management of the trust properties. They were also ordered to render an account of their administration. The plaintiffs were awarded costs from defendants 1 to 11. The appeal by defendants 12 to 17 was allowed, and the decree against them was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to appoint new trustees for the administration of the trust. Appeals allowed.

---