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>Court Invalidates Consent Decree, Implements New Trust Scheme</h1> <h3>Shri Mahadeo Jew And Anr. Versus Balkrishna Vyas And Anr.</h3> The court set aside the consent decree dated 7-9-1949, finding it invalid due to non-representation of the Deity and variance with the terms of the Will. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the consent decree dated 7-9-1949 on the ground of non-representation of the Deity.2. Validity of the consent decree on the ground that it is at variance with the terms of the Will.3. Validity of the consent decree on the ground that there was no free and voluntary consent by Ratan Bala.4. Scheme of administration, if any, to which the plaintiffs are entitled.Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 3: Free and Voluntary Consent by Ratan BalaThe court first addressed the factual issue of whether Ratan Bala gave her free and voluntary consent to the consent decree. After discussing the evidence, the court found that Ratan Bala did indeed give her free and voluntary consent to the terms of settlement. Therefore, the consent decree was not invalid on this ground.Issue No. 1: Non-Representation of the DeityThe court examined whether the consent decree was invalid due to the non-representation of the Deity, Sri Sri Mahadev Jew. The court analyzed the terms of the Will and the terms of settlement. It was noted that the Deity was not a party to Suit No. 4156 of 1948, and the terms of settlement altered the sheva provisions of the Deity without giving the Deity an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the Deity, being a juristic person, had a right to be heard on matters affecting it. Therefore, the consent decree was invalid on the ground of non-representation of the Deity.Issue No. 2: Variance with the Terms of the WillThe court compared the terms of the Will with the terms of the consent decree. The Will appointed three trustees, while the consent decree introduced a Managing Trustee and required the other trustees to act according to his directions. The court held that this arrangement was at variance with the terms of the Will, which required all trustees to act jointly. The court found that such delegation of authority to a Managing Trustee was illegal and violated the fundamental principles of the Law of Trustees. Consequently, the consent decree was invalid on this ground as well.Issue No. 4: Scheme of AdministrationThe court addressed whether it could frame a scheme for the administration of a private trust. It was argued that the court could not do so based on a precedent concerning public trusts. However, the court distinguished the present case, noting that it involved a private trust and not a public charity. The court held that it had the power to frame a scheme for the proper management of a private trust. The court then outlined a scheme for the administration of the trust, ensuring it aligned with the main objects of the Will of Renubala Dassi.Conclusion:The court set aside the consent decree dated 7-9-1949, finding it invalid due to non-representation of the Deity and variance with the terms of the Will. The court framed a new scheme for the administration of the trust, maintaining the original trustees and ensuring adherence to the Will's provisions. The costs of the proceedings were directed to come out of the estate, and the court expressed appreciation for the reasonable conduct of all counsel involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
