TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Trust Document Signed by Majority Trustees Upheld; Unauthorized Payments Ruled Against</h1> <h3>Ullathil Kolathil Nethiri Menon Versus Mullapulli Gopalan Nair and Ors.</h3> The High Court held that the document Exhibit B, signed by four out of five trustees, was valid and binding as there was no evidence to support the lower ... - Issues:1. Validity of the document Exhibit B signed by only four out of five trustees.2. Validity of the payment made to two out of five trustees and its discharge effect.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the validity of a document, Exhibit B, which was signed by only four out of the five trustees of a temple. The document was drawn up with the intention that all trustees should execute it. The lower courts found that the document was valid, but the High Court disagreed. The High Court scrutinized the evidence and concluded that there was no support for the finding that the document was intended to be executed by all five trustees. Urgent notices were sent to the fifth trustee, who repeatedly failed to sign, leading the other four trustees to execute the document without him. The High Court held that Exhibit B was a valid and binding document, as there was no evidence to support the lower courts' finding.2. The judgment also delves into the validity of a payment made to two out of the five trustees and its discharge effect. It was argued that even one trustee can receive and give a valid discharge for payments if authorized by the co-trustees. However, in this case, the two trustees receiving the payment were not authorized by the other trustees. Reference was made to the Indian Trusts Act, specifically Section 42, which was applied by analogy to charitable trusts in a previous case. The High Court disagreed with this application, emphasizing the English statutes upon which the Indian section is based. The Court held that the payment made to the two trustees and the receipt provided did not discharge all trustees from the plaintiff's claim, leaving them liable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, costs were awarded to the plaintiff, and a decree was granted in favor of the plaintiff, with a provision for the sale of properties in case of non-payment within six months.
TaxTMI 
