Foreign national trustee restrictions and failure to perform deed duties bar trusteeship, while the next heir may be fit to manage property.

A foreign national could not continue as trustee or administer immovable property in India without the permission required by law, and the settlement deed also required personal participation in the charities, regular collection and distribution of income, and proper accounts. Because the plaintiff had become a British citizen, lived in London, lacked permission to hold immovable property in India, and did not perform the duties required by the deed, he was not entitled to trusteeship or possession of the house property. The second defendant, being the next male heir in India and capable of managing the properties, was found fit to act as trustee and maintain the properties.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff was entitled to continue as trustee and administer the properties under the settlement deed; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the house property from the defendants; (iii) whether the second defendant was fit to be trustee and maintain the properties.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff was entitled to continue as trustee and administer the properties under the settlement deed.

Analysis: The settlement deed required the male heirs to administer the properties and contemplated actual participation in the charities, maintenance of the properties, and rendering of accounts. The plaintiff had become a British citizen, was residing in London, and had not obtained permission to hold immovable property in India. In view of Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, a person who is not a citizen of India cannot hold immovable property in India without the required permission. The Court also found that the plaintiff did not personally perform the charities, did not regularly collect and distribute the income, and did not maintain accounts as required by the deed.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to be trustee and could not administer the properties.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the house property from the defendants.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the defendants had been residing at another address and had come into occupation of the suit house in 1978. Since the plaintiff was found not entitled to act as trustee or administer the trust properties, he had no legal basis to seek eviction or recovery of possession from the defendants on the footing of trusteeship.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the house property from the defendants.

Issue (iii): whether the second defendant was fit to be trustee and maintain the properties.

Analysis: The other male heirs were either citizens of Singapore or otherwise not in a position to act as trustee. The second defendant was the next male heir residing in India and was capable of managing the properties and carrying out the obligations under the settlement deed.

Conclusion: The second defendant was fit to be trustee and to maintain the properties.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the decree in the suit filed by the plaintiff was set aside, and the connected suit for removal of the existing trustee and recognition of the second defendant as trustee was decreed.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign national cannot hold and administer immovable property in India as trustee without the permission required by law, and where the settlement deed requires personal performance of trust duties, failure to do so disqualifies the claimant from trusteeship.

---