TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 jurisdiction over trust properties within its jurisdiction; limits on interference with foreign trusts.</h1> The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as framed due to the existence of trust properties within its jurisdiction. However, it cannot interfere ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.2. Impact of partition and change in residency of trustees.3. Applicability of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code (CPC).4. Territorial jurisdiction and international law considerations.5. Authority to administer foreign charity and removal of trustees.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Suit:The Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code (CPC) depends on the existence within jurisdiction of property which is the subject-matter of the trust. The plaintiffs claimed that some properties belonging to the trust are situated within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, which was not disputed by the defendants. Consequently, there was no need to record evidence to ascertain the Court's jurisdiction at this stage. Section 92 CPC is a complete code for suits relating to public trusts of a religious or charitable nature, overriding Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Court in Bombay, being the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, would have jurisdiction if any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situated within its limits.2. Impact of Partition and Change in Residency of Trustees:At the date of filing the suit, the defendants were nationals of British India and resided within its territory. Post-partition, defendants Nos. 1 to 9 became residents of a territory beyond the Union of India, making them non-resident foreigners. This change fundamentally altered the position of the parties with respect to the Court. Initially, the Court could have granted directions to the defendants in personam, but post-partition, it became incompetent to issue personal directions against the trustees. Despite not being formally raised in the written statement, the argument that the Court is incompetent to try the suit due to the defendants being non-resident foreigners and the charity being foreign was allowed.3. Applicability of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code (CPC):Section 92 CPC provides that suits related to public trusts of a religious or charitable nature can be instituted in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within whose local limits the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situated. This provision overrides Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which generally governs the jurisdiction of the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is determined by the existence of trust property within its local limits, not by the residence of the defendants or the cause of action arising within its jurisdiction.4. Territorial Jurisdiction and International Law Considerations:All jurisdiction is territorial. No State can confer jurisdiction on its Courts to deal with rights and obligations concerning land outside its limits or against persons not residing within its realm. A decree against a non-resident foreigner issuing personal directions would be a nullity outside the State's limits. The Court can deal with immovable property within its jurisdiction but cannot exercise authority over foreign trusts or non-resident foreigners who do not submit to its jurisdiction. This principle is supported by international law and the judgment of the Privy Council in 'Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Rajah of Faridkote'.5. Authority to Administer Foreign Charity and Removal of Trustees:The Court cannot administer a foreign charity or remove trustees residing in a foreign country. However, it can protect property within its jurisdiction for the benefit of the trust. This principle is supported by the case 'Shivnarayan Sarupchand v. Bilasrai Juharmal', where it was held that the High Court of Bombay could not remove trustees of a charity functioning in an Indian State but could protect property within its jurisdiction. The Privy Council confirmed this view, emphasizing the Court's discretion rather than an inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Court can entertain the suit based on the allegations in the plaint but may not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with the administration of a foreign trust or issue personal directions against non-resident foreigners. The jurisdiction to entertain the suit is granted, but the reliefs to be granted will be decided at the hearing of the suit.Conclusion:The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as framed, given the existence of trust properties within its jurisdiction. However, it may not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with the administration of a foreign trust or issue personal directions against non-resident foreigners. The Court can protect the property within its jurisdiction for the benefit of the trust and pass necessary consequential orders. The issue of jurisdiction is answered affirmatively, allowing the trial of the suit to proceed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
