Whether one trustee can validly issue quit notice to tenant?

The issue in that case was whether one co-trustee could determine a tenancy. The Court said he could not, but held: (AIR p. 116, para 8)

"But when we say that the tenancy must be determined by all co-trustees, we must make it clear that what we mean is that the decision to terminate the tenancy must be taken by all the co-trustees. The formal act of giving notice to quit pursuant to the decision taken by all the co-trustees may be performed by one co-trustee on behalf of the rest. The notice to quit given in such a case would be a notice given with the sanction and approval of all the co-trustees and would be clearly a notice given by all co-trustees."

Therefore although as a rule, trustees must execute the duties of their office jointly, this general principle is subject to the following exceptions when one trustee may act for all (1) where the trust deed allows the trusts to be executed by one or more or by a majority of trustees; (2) where there is express sanction or approval of the act by the co-trustees; (3) where the delegation of power is necessary; (4) where the beneficiaries competent to contract consent to the delegation; (5) where the delegation to a co-trustee is in the regular course of the business; (6) where the co-trustee merely gives effect to a decision taken by the trustees jointly."

18. As can be seen from the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has clearly held that although as a rule the trustees must execute the duties and functions of their office jointly, this general principle is subject to exceptions as more particularly set out in paragraph 29. The first exception is when the Trust Deed allows the Trust to be executed by one or more or by a majority of trustees. The second exception is when there is an express sanction or approval of the act by the co-trustees.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 730 of 2014 and Civil Application No. 346 of 2014 in Civil Revision Application No. 730 of 2014

Decided On: 29.06.2017

 Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Digvijaysingh Gangasingh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Colabawalla, J.

Citation: 2018(1) MHLJ 259

Print Page

Whether transfer of property by trust deed will be invalid if it was effected during pendency of suit?

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:-

29. The impact of the doctrine of lis pendens as enunciated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions. Some of which may be referred to herein.

"1. In the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. reported in MANU/SC/0192/2013 : AIR 2013 SC 2389,

2. In the case of A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramaniyam MANU/SC/0516/2012 : (2012) 7 SCC 738,

3. In the case of T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal, MANU/SC/1044/2010 : JT 2010(13) SC 390."

30. It was uniformly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all those decisions that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation. It was also held that if ultimately title of the pendente lite transfer is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee's title will not be affected. Thus, if title of the pendente lite transferor is recognised or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee's title will be saved only in regard to that extent.

31. Thus, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those decisions that transfer during the pendency of the suit itself does not invalidate the transfer.

32. Thus, we hold that the deed of trust executed by the settlors cannot be held to be illegal and/or invalid as such deed was executed by the settlors during the pendency of the suit without taking leave of the Court, as contended by Mr. Das.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

S.A. 442 of 2016 and CAN 9187 of 2016

Decided On: 03.04.2017

 Nirmal Kumar Neogi Vs. Samar Ghosh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya and Asha Arora, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 907 Cal

Print Page