Trustee alienation and beneficiary relief under trust law: joint execution, representative suit maintainability, and equitable decree correction

A beneficiary may seek removal of a trustee, appointment of a fresh administrator and delivery of trust property, because the remedies under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 are not exhaustive and such relief is not confined to a bare declaration. A prior suit by different parties did not attract res judicata under Section 11 CPC. Under the trust deed and Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, all trustees had to join in alienating trust property, so sale deeds executed by only two trustees were ineffective. The text also treats a purchaser who repeatedly intermeddled with trust administration as a trustee de son tort, making the connected alienations vulnerable. Correction of the decree and adjustment of profits and interest were treated as permissible equitable modifications.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit by beneficiaries of the trust, seeking removal of the trustee, appointment of a new administrator and delivery of trust properties, was barred by limitation or was incompetent under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882; (ii) whether the dismissal of the earlier suit operated as res judicata; (iii) whether alienations executed by only two of three trustees were valid under the trust deed and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882; (iv) whether one purchaser had become a trustee de son tort by intermeddling with the trust estate and whether the related alienations were invalid; and (v) whether the High Court could correct the decree and adjust interest and profits on equitable grounds.

Issue (i): whether the suit by beneficiaries of the trust, seeking removal of the trustee, appointment of a new administrator and delivery of trust properties, was barred by limitation or was incompetent under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

Analysis: The plaint was construed as seeking not merely a declaration but also recovery of possession of the trust properties through a newly appointed administrator. The suit was therefore not confined to a declaratory relief. Section 63 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 was held not to be exhaustive of the remedies available to a beneficiary. A beneficiary could, in a proper case, seek removal of the trustee, appointment of a fresh trustee or administrator, and delivery of trust property to the new custodian. The claim was not treated as barred merely because a possessory remedy was sought in aid of the trust.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and not barred on the footing that only a declaration could be sought.

Issue (ii): whether the dismissal of the earlier suit operated as res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier suit had been filed by the debtors, whereas the present proceedings were a representative suit brought by creditors under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The parties were therefore not the same, nor were they claiming through one another so as to attract Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. General notions of res judicata could not be invoked to enlarge the statutory rule where Section 11 was inapplicable.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed.

Issue (iii): whether alienations executed by only two of three trustees were valid under the trust deed and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

Analysis: Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 requires all trustees to join in executing the trust unless the instrument of trust otherwise provides. Clause 23 of the trust deed was read as requiring the three trustees to act jointly, though decisions could be reached unanimously or by majority. It did not authorise two trustees to execute the trust property transfers without the third trustee joining in the actual conveyance. The evidence also showed that the absent trustee was not a consenting party. The two sale deeds executed without his participation were therefore ineffective to pass title.

Conclusion: The conveyances executed by only two trustees were invalid.

Issue (iv): whether one purchaser had become a trustee de son tort by intermeddling with the trust estate and whether the related alienations were invalid.

Analysis: The conduct of the purchaser showed repeated interference with the administration of the trust estate, including directing the trust clerk, negotiating settlements and handling trust collections. Such conduct amounted to intermeddling beyond mere assistance and attracted the character of a trustee de son tort. Transactions in favour of close relatives of a trustee were also vulnerable under Section 52 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which prohibits a trustee from purchasing trust property directly or indirectly, and under Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which restricts delegation of trustee functions. The connected sales were also tainted by improper delegation and inadequate consideration.

Conclusion: The purchaser was rightly treated as a trustee de son tort and the connected alienation was invalid.

Issue (v): whether the High Court could correct the decree and adjust interest and profits on equitable grounds.

Analysis: The correction from "mesne profits" to "net profits" was treated as a clerical correction within Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The direction concerning profits and the modification of compound interest to simple interest were treated as part of an equitable adjustment between the trust and the alienees after the impugned transfers were set aside. The Court saw no legal basis to interfere with that adjustment.

Conclusion: The decree correction and equitable modification of interest and profits were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned transfers were held invalid on multiple independent grounds, the suit was maintainable, and the appeals failed in their entirety, leaving the decree substantially undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a trust instrument does not clearly authorise otherwise, trustees must execute trust alienations jointly, and a beneficiary may seek restoration of trust property through a properly framed representative suit; remedies under Section 63 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 are not exhaustive where equitable relief is necessary to protect the trust.

---