Charitable charge, not absolute dedication, meant restraint on alienation was void and later settlement deeds remained valid.

The 1948 settlement deeds were construed as a whole and found to keep the properties within the family, with only one-fourth of the net income earmarked for charity. That arrangement created a charge in favour of the charity, not an absolute dedication or endowment of the properties. The restraint on alienation was void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, so the settlee retained power to deal with the properties. On that basis, the 1970 settlement deeds could not be treated as invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the settlement deeds executed in 1948 amounted to an absolute dedication of the properties to the charitable trust, and whether the restraint on alienation and the subsequent settlement deeds executed in 1970 were valid.

Analysis: The settlement deeds were construed as a whole. They showed that the settlor intended the properties to remain within the family, while only one-fourth of the net income was earmarked for charity and the balance was to be enjoyed by the settlee and his descendants. On that construction, the arrangement created only a charge in favour of the charity and did not amount to an outright endowment of the properties. A restraint preventing alienation of the properties could not stand in view of the prohibition against such restraints under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since there was no absolute dedication, the settlee had power to deal with the properties, and the 1970 settlements could not be treated as invalid on the basis assumed by the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The settlement deeds of 1948 did not create an absolute trust or dedication; they created only a charge for charity, the restraint on alienation was void, and the 1970 settlement deeds were valid.

---