1MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.

sxw

mnm INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION MISC.PETITIONNO.63OF2010 IN TESTAMENTARYPETITIONNO.566OF2008 MartenBorchertandanr. Vs. ArzanKhambattaandanr. ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Mr.HareshJagtiani,SeniorAdvocatea/w.Mr.Siddhesh BholeandKathleneLoboforthePetitioners Mr.J.F.Pochkhanawalla,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.AdityaChitalefortheRespondents CORAM:SMT.ROSHANDALVI,J. ClosedfororderDate:23rdFebruary2011 PronouncementoforderDate:18thApril,2011 JUDGMENT: 1. ThePetitionerNo.1isthefatherofPetitionerNo.2. Heisthe brotherofoneUrsulaDaraMistry,theTestatrixwhoexecuteda Willdated7th February2004andCodicildated29th November 2004whichhavebeenprobated.Respondents1and2arethe executorsunderthesaidWillandtheCodiciloftheTestatrix. TheRespondentshaveadministeredalargepartoftheestateof thetestatrixasperthemandatecontainedinherWill.

2MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

2. The Petition is filed for removal of the Respondents as the executors and appointment of other executors in their place. ThePetitionis,therefore,essentiallyfiledunderSection301of theIndianSuccessionAct.ThePetitionisalsofiledfordirecting inventoryoftheestateoftheTestatrix,informationofthesteps in administration, handing over of certain property being the RuralElectrificationCorporation(REC)bonds,implementation of the Will, appointment of receiver and appointment of PetitionerNo.1 as the sole trusteeof the trust directedtobe formedbytheTestatrixwithinatimeframe. 3. Itmayatoncebementionedthattheprayerrelatingtoremoval of Respondents and appointment of others in their place as executors is diametrically different from and contradictory to theprayersforgivinganinventory,information,handingoverof specified movable properties being REC bonds and implementationoftheWillwithinatimeframe.Eitherofthese reliefsmay,therefore,begranted. 4. It may also be mentioned that the Petitioners have been unusuallyhastyaswellasenthusiasticintheadministrationof the estate of the Testatrix, The Petitionershave corresponded withtheexecutorsaftertheTestamentaryPetitionforgrantof probatecametobefiledandbeforetheprobatewasgrantedby

3MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

theCourt.Thiscorrespondencehaslargelybeeninrespectof twoimmovablepropertiesoftheTestatrixinrespectofwhicha trusthasbeendirectedtobeformedwithcertainothertrustees andPetitionerNo.2asthebeneficiary. Thedespatchexhibited by the Petitioners in the administration of the estate is not strictlyasperthemandatecontainedintheWilloftheTestatrix, butasdesiredbythemwhichiscontrarytotheintentionofthe TestatrixthattheWillreflects. 5. AshortchronologyofeventswouldshowwhatthePetitioners havedesiredandhowtheRespondentshaveacted. TheWill was executed on 7th February 2004. A Codicil has been executedon29thNovember2004.TheTestatrixexpiredon21st June 2007. A petition for probate came to be filed on 7th February2008.LettersofAdvocatesonbehalfofthePetitioners cametobeaddressedinitiallytotheRespondentsandlaterto theirAdvocateby15th September2009and9th October2009 whenthepetitionforprobatewaspendinginthisCourtcalling upontheRespondentstohandoverpossessionofthedisputed partoftheestateoftheTestatrix.Probatecametobegrantedon 21stNovember2009.Acopyoftheprobatewassuppliedtothe Petitioneron22ndDecember2009. 6. TheRespondentswouldberequiredtocommencetheworkof administrationoftheestateoftheTestatrixonlyonandfrom

4MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

21st November 2009 under the provisions of Section 317 of IndianSuccessionAct,1925.TheRespondentswouldrequireto make an inventory of the estate of the Testatrix within six monthsofthegrantorfurthertimeasallowedbytheCourt. The Respondents would require to render accounts of the propertyandcreditsoftheTestatrixwithinoneyeartherefrom. TheRespondentswouldenjoyastatutoryperiodofoneyearor furthertimeasallowedbytheCourtfromthedateofthegrant to administer the estate, the undertaking of which is incorporated into the grant itself. Accordingly, the administration, as per the circumstances of the case, may be allowed to continue by the Court even after the aforesaid statutoryperiod. 7. It must be appreciated that each Will requires a different reasonableperiodwithinwhichtofullyadministertheestate.In order to administer the estate the initial requirement is the makingofinventoryfollowedbytherenderingofaccounts.In somecasestheadministrationwouldbemerelycompleteupon thesetwostepsbeingtakeninadministration.Theonlyaspect whichwouldremainfortheexecutorstocomplyisthehanding overoftheestateoftheTestatrix. Thistimeframewouldbe enforced by the Court in case of a single bequest or simple bequest. In case of larger estate and more expansive and intricate directions in the Will for the handing over of the

5MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

bequests,theCourtwouldhaveanabsolutediscretiontogrant such further time as would be required and as would be merited. 8. Thecaseofremovalofanexecutorwouldcomeupwhenthe executor is shown to be an inveterate nonworker by his inactioninadministration.Suchacasecouldbemadeoutonly afterthepassageofsufficienttimetoallowtheexecutor,whois anappointeeoftheTestator/Testatrix, adecenttimeinwhich toperformhisduties.Inviewofthefactthatexecutorsperform their duties and functions and discharge their responsibilities gratis no undue burden can be cast upon them by the Testator/TestatrixasalsoortheCourtorthebeneficiaries.They arenotenjoinedtoperformtheirfunctionsatthewhimsand demandsofthebeneficiaries. 9. Under the Will of the Testatrix there are as many as five different and specific directions upon the executors for the distributionofspecifiedmovableandimmovablepropertiesto specificbeneficiariesthus: conductingherfuneral,payingherdebts,sellingherresidential flat at Malabar Hill, Mumbai and giving the sale proceeds to PetitionerNo.1,formingatrustfortwoimmovablepropertiesat Alibagandcollecting,sellinganddistributingthesaleproceeds ofhershare,securities,bondsandbankaccounts.Therearesix

6MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

immovablepropertiesbequeathedtosixseparateindividualsout of which two properties being her residential flat and the aforesaidtwopropertiesarerequiredtobeadministeredbysale and by formation of the trust respectively. In both these two propertiesthePetitionersarethebeneficiaries.Furtherthereare as many as nine different heads of movable properties including sculptures and paintings, jewellery and antiques, sarees,electricalgoodsandhouseholdarticles,writings,articles likecomputerprinterscassettesetc.,books,gemsandcrystalsas also shares, securities, fixed deposits and bonds and bank accounts. The Will shows as many as eighteen independent beneficiaries,twoofwhomarethePetitioners. 10.Therehasbeennocomplaintorgrievancefromsixteenofthe beneficiariesagainsteitheroftheRespondents. Therelations between the parties herein were also cordial soon after the death of the testatrix. The Respondents as the executors commenced their work immediately after the death of the testatrix.Partoftheestatecametobedistributedwithinaweek thereofincludingarticlesgiventothePetitionerNo.1aswellas hiswife. Itiscontendedthattwopiecesofantiquefurniture were appropriated by the Petitioner though specific bequests were made in respect of those articles in favour of other beneficiaries. The Petitioners have also not pressed charges againsttheRespondentsinrespectoftheresidentialflatofthe

7MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Testatrix which is directed to be sold and of which the sale proceedsaretobehandedovertothePetitionerNo.1andthisis despite the fact that there is an express allowance to the Respondentsastheexecutorsthediscretiontopostponethesale of the residential flat so long as they shall think fit without being liable or accountable for the loss, if any. That is the largest single immovable property of the Testatrix being her residential flat then sold for Rs.2.25 crores and the proceeds were investedas pertherequirementoftaxation law in REC bondsandMutualfundsoutofwhichRs.1.86croresisstatedto havebeenobtainedandpaidtoPetitionerNo.1toeffectuatethe bequestinhisfavour.Rs.80lakhsofthebalanceandherother investments is invested in Mutual Funds. There has been a needlessdisputeinrespectoftheuseofacarwhichfellinthe residueandwhichhassincebeenhandedovertoPetitionerNo. 1astheresiduarylegatee. APostofficesavingsaccounts,the proceedsofwhichhavebeengiventothemaidoftheTestatrix also was not spared. The Post Master has, however, rightly directedthattheproceedsshallnotbepaidovertoanyonebut thenamedlegatee.HencethePetitionersasalsoseveralother beneficiariesundertheWillhavebeenthebeneficiariesofthe actionsoftheRespondents.Allthoseneednotbeenumerated sinceithasbeenacceptedbythePetitioners. 11.ThePetitionforprobatehasbeenfiledwithin8monthsofthe

8MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

deathoftheTestatrix. Theprobate, ExhibitA tothepetition hasbeengrantedwithintwoyearsofitsfiling.Pursuanttothe correspondencedemandingquickdischargeofdutiesandwhich has gone much further than the mandate under the Will, as shallbeseenpresently,alarge partoftheestatecametobe administered within six months of the grant of probate. Consequently, whereas under the specific provisions of the Statute and the grant, during the period in which only an inventory of the properties are to be made, the Petitioners expectedtheentireestatetohavebeenadministeredandsince it was not administered they have sued for removal of the executorsasalsofordirectionsdirectingthemtocarryouttheir functions under the Will itself. This is expecting undue diligencefromtheexecutors. 12.TheRespondentshaveshownreasonswhyandhowtheestate couldnotbeadministeredmoreexpeditiouslythanitactually was.TheRespondentshavealsoshownthestepstakenbythem in administration. These include efforts put in by the Respondents prior to as well as after the filing of the above Petitionfortheirremoval.TheRespondentshaveshownintheir affidavittheactsperformedbythemastheexecutorsunderthe WilloftheTestatrixinunisonwiththebeneficiariesincluding thePetitionerNo.1indistributingallthemovablepropertiesas well as acting for the procurement of their immovable

9MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

propertiessofarascouldbedonewiththeirconsentandeven withouttheapplicationforprobate. 13.The Respondents wrote several letters to the Chartered Accountant(C.A.)oftheTestatrixsince16thAugust2007calling upon him to go through the accounts of the Testatrix and investmentsandadvisetheminadministration.Giventhelarge estateleftbytheTestatrixtheC.Atooktimeofmorethanthree yearstomakeadetailedreportoftheestate.Thereportcame to be submitted on 20th August 2010 well before which the probatecame tobeobtained. Aspertherequirementofthe BankanapplicationfortheExecutorspancardcametobemade and the card is stated to have been obtained nine months thereafter.ItisonlyupontheC.Aobtainingthejointpancard to operate the dmat account of the testatrix, which was imperatively required, that the Respondents could administer the movable property of the Testatrix including her bank accountsandvariousinvestmentsmadetherefrom.Respondents 1 and 2 have shown in their affidavit in reply the transfer effectedtotheexecutorsbankaccountasalsotheredemption ofmaturedbonds.FromtheC.Ascertificatedated20thAugust 2010 the executors deciphered further investments of the TestatrixinRECbonds,bankaccounts,mutualfundsetc. The RespondentshandedovertothePetitionersthedetailsof the bankaccountssounearthed.

10MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

14.Itmaybementionedthatcertainbankaccountswereinitially not disclosed by the Respondents to the Petitioners. The Petitionershavemademuchaboutthatfactasasuppression. Sincethebankaccountsarethemselvesnotspecifiedmovable propertiesbequeathedundertheWillandsincetheyreflectthe proceedsof theothermovablepropertiesoftheTestatrixviz. FDRs,bondssharesandsecuritiesandtheincometherefrom,a disclosure of those specified securities would be sufficient complianceoftheactiononthepartoftheexecutorsprovided, ofcoursethatnosinglemovablepropertyreflectedinthebank accounts is left undistributed as per the directions under the Will. 15.The hurrywhich isexhibitedby the Petitionersinseeingthe bankaccountoftheTestatrixwhichisstatedtobehavebeen hitherto concealed, is matched by the response of the Respondentsthattheycouldnotadministerthemovableestate of the Testatrix before they obtained the executors pancard, which theyapplied and pursuant to which they were able to operate the bank accounts. Given the fact that this administrativeactsdotakeupsometimeoftheexecutors,who otherwisehavetheirownindependentcallingorbusinesswhich theyhavetoattendto,thecommencementoftheiractionafter procuring the pancard which was required as a condition

11MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

precedent foroperationofthebankaccountscannotbetaken to be inaction on their part, which must visit them with the punishmentofremoval.Infactconsideringthevastestate,the procedural constraints and their obvious preoccupations, the Respondentshaveratherexpeditiouslyadministeredtheestate thoughapartoftheestatemayhavebeenadministeredonly uponthespecificproddingandpushofthePetitioners,however prematurely. Before and after the filing of the Petition for probate by the Respondents as well as this Petition by the Petitioners,thePetitionershavesoughttotakeaccountsofand demandadministrationforeachaspectofthepropertiesofthe Testatrix,theexercisewhollyoutsidetheperviewofthePetition underSection301oftheIndianSuccessionActforremovalof executors. 16. A case for removal of the Respondents is, therefore, neither opportunenormaturedandisrightlynotpressed. Theother reliefs aforesaid which have been pressed and have been allowed despite the fact that such mandatory reliefs for implementation of the Will including making inventory or handingoverproceedsofRECbondsareoutsidethejurisdiction oftheTestamentaryCourtandcanbegrantedonlybytheCivil CourtinaCivilSuitbeingfileduponpaymentoftherequisite advelorumcourtfeetherein.Themisconceptioninthepetition is,therefore,apparentfromthe prayerstherein. Nevertheless

12MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

uponthefairconcessionoftheroleoftheRespondentsinthe discharge of their responsibilities as executors, they have appliedfor,obtainedanddistributedalargepartoftheestate includingtheestatebequeathedtothePetitioners,whichthey havebeeninanunduehastetoreceive. 17.AtthetimethePetitioncameupforhearingthePetitionersdid notpresstheprayerforremovaloftheexecutors,atleastas vehemently, onthegroundoftheirinactioninprocuringand transferringcertain movableandimmovablepropertiesof the Testatrix, as they did in respect of one trust which the Respondentshavebeendirectedtocreateandformunderthe Will. 18.The formation of the trust is in respect of two immovable properties at Alibag of which Petitioner No.2 is the sole beneficiary.UndertheaforesaidcorrespondencethePetitioners claimed to be put in possession of the said property by the executors absolutely. That demand is wholly contrary to the directionsoftheTestatrixundertheWill. 19.Prayer(g)ofthePetitionisforappointmentofPetitionerNo.1 as the sole trustee of the trust in place of seven trustees appointedbytheTestatrixundertheWillinrespectofthesaid property which is also inconsistent with the directions of the

13MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Testatrixrelatingtotheformationofthetrust. 20.It is argued by Mr. Jagtiani Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitionersthatthetrustcannotbeformedasperthedirections oftheTestatrixbecausethreeoftheseventrusteesnamedby theTestatrixherselfasthefirsttrusteesofthetrusthaverefused toact astrustees. It is, therefore, contended that the clause cannotbegiveneffectinitsentirety. 21.Itwouldbeapttosetouttheclauserelatingtotheformationof thetrusttoappreciatetheintentionoftheTestatrixasreflected fromtheimperfectdraftingoftheclausegivingvariousessential contradictorymandatesthereundertoseewhether,sittinginthe armchairoftheTestatrix,theCourtcanstrictlyorsufficiently havethesaidclauseexecutedorwhethertheCourtwouldbe constrainednottogiveeffecttothesaidclause,partlyorfully. Clause12.Iownanotherseparateimmoveablepropertyat Agarsure, Alibag being Survey No.146, Hissa No.3 and Survey No.146, Hissa No.6, on which I have intended to establishaCentredevotedtospreadofknowledgeofIndian culture,yoga,sustainableliving,organicvegetablegrowing, healingartsandforestry.Idirectmyexecutorstoassignto aprivatecharitabletrusttobecreatedandformedinthe name of Dara Mistrys Green World both the said immovablepropertiessituatedatAgarsure,Alibag. Ifthe saidTrustisnotcreatedinmylifetimeIdirectmyExecutors andTrusteesaftermydeaththatinthateventthey should appointandnominatethefirstTrusteesofthesaidTrustthe followingpersons:

14MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

CarmelMistry FahroukhDudhmal FeruzanKhambatta FerzinKhambatta ArzanKhambatta TinazRotnem FiroozBomiPavriand mynephewBernhardDaraBorcherttobethebeneficiaryof theTrustwhocouldliveonthesaidpropertiesandmanage intheTrustpropertiesandmakealivingtherefrom.Ifthe trustisnotformedthenmybrotherMartinBorchertwill administerthebenefitsonbehalfofBernhardDaraBorchert and operate the accounts of Dara Mistrys Green World singly and without being responsible to any other beneficiaryunderthisWill. (emphasisofthemostessentialwordssupplied) 22.Adissectionoftheaforesaidclauseshowsthatfortheaforesaid two properties a private charitable trust is required to be formed. ThenameofthetrustwouldbeDaraMistrysGreen World, Dara Mistry being the late husband of the Testatrix. TheTestatrixdesiredtocreateatrustinherlifetime.Shefailed todothat.Theexecutorshadtoappointthefirsttrustees.The firsttrusteeswerenamedbyher.Thesewereasmanyasseven trustees. The Petitioner No.2 was the beneficiary. The PetitionerNo.2wasallowedtoliveonthesaidproperties,ifhe wished. He was also allowed to manage in the trust properties.IfthattrustwasalsonotformedthePetitionerNo.1 wasdirected/allowedtoadministerthebenefits(ofthetrust).

15MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Hewasalsoallowedtooperatetheaccountsofthetrust. He wasallowedtooperatethemsingly.Hewasnotresponsibleto otherbeneficiariestheotherbeneficiariesasaforesaid,areas many as eighteen persons including the trust itself and PetitionerNo.2himself.Hewouldhoweverberesponsibleasa trustee of the said trust which responsibility has not been waivedundertheWillbytheTestatrix. He,therefore,would not get the said property absolutely and accordingly neither wouldhissongetanabsolutebequestofthesaidproperty. 23.Areadingoftheclauseasawholeshowsthattheprimedesire oftheTestatrixwastoestablishacenterforthespreadofIndian CultureandYoga.TheTestatrixevennamedhertrust. Itwas namedafterherhusband.Thattrusthadtobeformedunder anycircumstances.Shecouldformitherselfinherlifetime.If thatwasnotformedtheexecutorshadtoformthetrustwith thetrusteeswhomsheappointedasherfirsttrustees. Ifthat wasalsonotformedherbrotherwouldhavetoformthetrust, administer it and operate its accounts. The exclusion of responsibility of her brother, Petitioner No.1, was against the beneficiary (in the singular mentioned under the Will). The othersixteenbeneficiarieshadnothingtodowiththetrustand have not taken any exception to its formation or the appointmentofthetrustees.

16MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

24.Therealportionoftheclausewhichissoughttobeeffectuated bytheRespondentsandwhichis strenuouslyresistedbythe Petitioners as the proposed administrator and beneficiary respectivelyistheformationofthetrustbytheexecutorsand theassignmentofthepropertiestosuchtrust. Itisclearthat theTestatrixhasnominatedsevenpersonsasthefirsttrustees. Theseareonetoomany,giventhefactthattheywouldrequire todischargetheirdutiesgratisforPetitionerNo.2 whoisthe solebeneficiaryofthetrust.Aconstructionoftheclausethey shouldappointandnominatethefirsttrusteesofthesaidtrust the following persons is differently sought to be put by the parties.ItiscontendedonbehalfofthePetitionersthatthisisa mandatoryrequirement;theonlymandateoftheTestatrixfor thecreationofthetrust.TheTestatrixhasnotgivenanyother directionstotheexecutorsfortheformationofthetrust. Itis soughttobeshowntoCourtthatthewritingofthenamesof seventrusteesitselfreflectsthepurposeofthespecificdirection ofappointingnotlessthansevenpersonsastrustees.Threeof thetrusteesareRespondentNo.1anditstwofamilymembers. Theotherfourtrusteesareoutsiders.Itis,therefore,justifiably contendedthattheTestatrixsoughttooffsettheinfluencethat eachofthefamilymembersoftheRespondentNo.1mightyield upontheothertrustees,iftheyoutnumbersuchothertrustees andhencetopowerbalancetheworkingofthetrustees,four

17MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

independent outsiders have been sought to be named and appointedtoworkalongsidethethreemembersofthefamilyof theRespondentNo.1includinghimself. Thoughthisstandsto reason,itcannotbegainsaidthattheTestatrixcouldhavealso contemplated less than three members of the family of the RespondentNo.1asalsolessthanfourindependentoutsiders forequalpowerbalancing,iftheindependentoutsidetrustees would outnumber Respondent No.1 and/or his other family members. 25.What however has actually happened would show and demonstratetheintentoftheTestatrix. Threeofthetrustees haverefusedtoactleavingjustoneindependentoutsiderasa trustee to act alongwiththree ofthefamilymembers ofthe Respondent No.1, a situation considered rather gross and overwhelming by the Petitioners who contemplate and apprehendmismanagementormaladministrationofthetrustat thehandsofthetrusteessoastodeprivePetitionerNo.2ofthe benefitsoftheaforesaidtwoproperties.Itis,therefore,argued ontheirbehalfthatsincethethreetrusteesappointedbythe Testatrix cannot be compelled to act the entire mandate of appointmentof trustees itself falls andthe Court cannot give effecttosuchdirection. Ofcourseitisacceptedthatthesaid twoimmovablepropertiescannotdevolveuponthePetitioner No.2absolutelyandwithoutformationofanytrustwhatsoever

18MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

and that is reflected from prayer (g) to the Petition itself in whichPetitionershaveappliedforthereliefofappointmentof PetitionerNo.1asthesoletrusteeofthetrustspecificallynamed inthesaidprayerasDaraMistrysGreenWorld.Thisaspectis furtherfortifiedbythelastsentenceintheaforesaidclause12 of the Will which directs the Petitioner No.1 to operate the accounts of Dara Mistrys Green World singly. It would, therefore,implythatifthetrustisnotformedbytheexecutors or cannot be formed by the executors, PetitionerNo.1 would formthetrustofwhichhewouldbethesoletrusteehavingthe dutytoadministerthebenefitsofthetrustonbehalfofhisson PetitionerNo.2andhavetherighttooperatetheaccountsofthe trustsinglyforthatpurpose. Though,therefore,hewouldnot beresponsibletoanybeneficiary(includingPetitionerNo.2)he wouldbeenjoinedtoformthetrustofthespecifiednamegiven bytheTestatrix. 26.AreadingoffurtherclausesoftheWillalsopositsthattheonly essentialintentionofthe Testatrix istothe creation of Dara MistrysGreenWorld,evidencedfromclauses17and20ofthe Willinwhichseparatebequestsofmovablepropertiesand/or their values are made to Dara Mistrys Green World. The specificbequestunderclause17isofcomputers,printers,other hardware,cameras,computerperipherals,yogabooks,spiritual literature and web collections to be utilized for teaching

19MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

purposes.Thespecificbequestundertheclause20whichdeals withthesaleoftheshares,securities,FDRsandbondstonine specificbequestsgrantsthebalanceofsuchinvestmentsofthe TestatrixastheresiduaryamountofsuchinvestmentstoDara MistrysGreenWorld. FurtherthewordsmynephewBernhardDaraBorcherttobethe beneficiaryoftheTrustwhocouldliveonthesaidpropertiesand manageintheTrustpropertiesshowthatPetitionerNo.2,the beneficiary of the trust, would be entitled to enjoy the propertiesunderthemanagementoftheTrusteesbutnotobtain themabsolutely. ThewordsmybrotherMartinBorchertwill administerthebenefitsonbehalfofBernhardDaraBorchertand operatethe accountsofDaraMistrysGreenWorld singly areto beoperationalonlyifthetrustisnotformedbytheExecutors. InthatcasePetitionerNo.1isenjoinedtoformthetrustandas asoletrusteeoperateitsaccounts. 27.Thefirstofthenamedtrusteeswasalsoappointedoneofthe two executors under the Will. She sought to renounce her executorshipduringthelifetimeoftheTestatrixherself. She tendered her resignation as executrix to the Testatrix. The TestatrixexecutedaCodicilon7thFebruary2004andappointed PetitionerNo.2instead. TheTestatrixknewthatshewasnot only the executrix and trustee of the Will, but also the first

20MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

named trustee amongst the seven named trustees of Dara Mistrys Green World. Yet the Testatrix has not made any provisionwithregardtotheappointmentofthetrusteesinthe placeandsteadofthesaidsoleexecutrixandtrusteeoftheWill. Consequently, during the life time of the Testatrix herself the propertiestobesettledunderTrustcametobeonlyundera trustofthesixnamedpersonsasthefirsttrustees. 28.TheTestatrixhasnotappointedanotherpersonastrusteeinthe placeofsaidexecutrixwhowasthefirstnamedtrusteeduring herlifetime. ThiswasthoughthewillaswellastheCodicil wereexecutedin2004andsheexpiredinJune2007. 29.TheCodicilisapartoftheWillandmustbereadaswellas probated along with the Will. A reading of the will unmistakably shows the intention of the Testatrix to create a trustcalledDaraMistrysGreenWorldforthevariousnoble purposesmentionedtherein.HoweverareadingoftheWilland the Codicil also shows that she herself did not name seven trustees as the first trustees prior to her death. This is the strongestcircumstanceoftheintentionoftheTestatrixtoshow thatitwasnotimperativeforallofthesevennamedpersonsto betheseventrusteesofthetrustwithoutwhomtheentiretrust couldnothavebeenformed.

21MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

30.ThereisnothingtoshowthattheoriginalexecutrixoftheWill whoresignedassuchexecutrixexpressedherdesiretoactas oneofthefirsttrusteesofthetrustduringthelifetimeofthe Testatrix.Shehasexpressedherdesirenottobeoneofthefirst trusteesafterthedeathoftheTestatrixalongwithtwoother trustees. It is true that if the trust is formed of only the remaining four trustees, the entire control of the trust would remainonlyinthefamilyoftheRespondentNo.1whomaybe inimicaltothePetitionerNo.2whoisthesolebeneficiaryofthe trust. However by the mere fact of three of the trustees expressing their desire not to be the first trustees, the entire trustcannotbedissolved.NosuchmandateoftheTestatrixcan bereadintotheWill. TheactoftheTestatrixduringherlife timeaftertheexecutionoftheWillandtheCodicildoesnot show or suggest the requirement of such appointment as an imperativedirective. 31.The trust itself is the focal point and the most paramount intention. The positive and oft repeated intention of the TestatrixcanneverbebypassedorbrushedasidebytheCourt.It willhavetobeeffectuated. 32.It can, therefore, be seen that aside from the paramount intentionoftheTestatrixtoformthetrustcalledDaraMistrys

22MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

GreenWorldontheaforesaidtwoimmovablepropertieswhich isclearandspecific,theactualadministrationandmanagement ofthetrust,theoperationofthebankaccounts,asalsothefirst trusteesofthetrustareleftflexible. 33.How would the Court best effectuate the intention of the Testatrixtoformsuchatrust? 34.Itwouldhavetobeseenhowthatpartofclause12whichisnot imperativecouldbeeffectuated. Somewordsmayhavetobe suppliedinit. ThenecessarymandateundertheWillmustbe ascertained and deciphered from a reading of the Will. The senseinwhichsomeofthewordswithregardtothisaspectare usedrestrictedorwidewouldhavetobeascertained. A meaningwouldhavetobegiventoeachpartoftheclause,but withoutrejectinganypartofitgivingfulleffecttotheintention oftheTestatrix. 35.TothatendtheprovisionscontainedinChapterVIoftheIndian SuccessionActrelatingtoconstructionofWillsasalsoEnglish LawwithregardtotheconstructionofWillsandtheprecedents therefromwouldhavetobeconsidered. 36.Itwouldbeapttocommencefromareadingofsomeofthe statutory provisions in the Indian Succession Act itself. The

23MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

specific provisions for the construction of the Will of the Testatrixwouldbereadthus: Section77.WhenwordsmaybesuppliedWhere any word material to the full expression of the meaninghasbeenomitted,itmaybesuppliedbythe context. Illustration The testator gives a legacy of five hundred to his daughterAandalegacyoffivehundredrupeesto hisdaughterB. Awilltakealegacyoffivehundred rupees. Section82.Meaningofclausetobecollectedfrom entireWillThemeaningofanyclauseinaWillis tobecollectedfromtheentireinstrument,andallits partsaretobeconstruedwithreferencetoeachother. Section 83. When words may be understood in restricted sense, and when in sense wider than usual General words may be understood in a restricted sense where it may be collected from the Will that the testator meant to use them in a restrictedsense;andwordsmaybeunderstood ina widersensethanthatwhichtheyusuallybear,where itmaybecollectedfromtheotherwordsoftheWill that the testator meant to use them in such wider sense. Illustration (i)AtestatorgivestoAmyfarmintheoccupationof B,andtoCallmymarshlandsinL. Partofthe farmintheoccupationofBconsistsofmarchlandsin L,andthetestatoralsohasothermarchlandsinL. The general words all my marshlands in L, are restrictedbythegifttoA. Atakesthewholeofthe

24MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

farmintheoccupationofB,includingthatportionof thefarmwhichconsistsofmarchlandsinL. (ii) Thetestator(asailoronshipboard)bequeathed to his mother his gold ring, buttons and chest of clothes,andtohisfriend,A(ashipmate),hisredbox, claspknifeandallthingsnotbeforebequeathed.The testatorsshareinahousedoesnotpasstoAunder thisbequest. (iii)A,byhisWill,bequeathedtoBallhishousehold furniture,plate,linen,china,books,picturesandall other goods of whatever kind; and afterwards bequeathed to B a specified part of his property. Under the first bequest, B is entitled, only to such articlesofthetestatorsasareofthesamenaturewith thearticlesthereinenumerated. Section 84. Which of two possible constructions preferred Where a clause is susceptible of two meaningsaccordingtooneofwhichithassomeeffect, andaccordingtotheotherofwhichitcanhavenone, theformershallbepreferred. Section 85. No part rejected, if it can be reasonablypreferred No part of a Will shall be rejectedasdestituteofmeaningifitispossibletoput areasonableconstructionuponit. and Section87.Testatorsintentiontobeeffectuated asfaraspossibleTheintentionofthetestatorshall notbesetasidebecauseitcannottakeeffecttothefull extent,buteffectistobegiventoitasfaraspossible. 37.Withregardtotheappointmentofthesevennamedpersonsin theWillasthefirsttrusteesalotofemphasishasbeenplacedby Mr. Jagtiani on behalf of the Petitioners to the conjugation

25MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

should. He has contended that this expression shows the imperativetense.Englishgrammergoestoshowthatinfactit isnotso. Thatwouldhavebeensoiftheconjugationshall hadbeenused. TheexpressionShalldenotesanimperative direction in the sentence. The expression should denotes whatwouldbetherightthingtodo.Thedictionarymeaningof thetermshallinConciseOxfordDictionaryEleventhEdition at page 1321 shows that it expresses a strong assertion or intention as it expresses an instruction or command. The expression should on the other hand is defined in the said Dictionary at page 1333 to show that it is a third person singulartenseusedtoindicateobligation,duty,orcorrectness itisusedtogiveoraskadviceorsuggestionsitisusedto indicate what is probable. It is defined to be a formal expressionoftheconditionalmoodindicatingtheconsequence ofanimaginedevent.Itreferstoapossibleeventorsituation. It expresses apoliterequestor acceptanceor aconjecture or hope(inthefirstperson). 38.Theexpressionshouldinclause12oftheWill(Seeemphasis in the quoted clause above) therefore, would not make the direction so binding as never to be altered. Though the executors should appoint the seven persons named by the Testatrix, itwouldhavetobeseenwhetherthetrusteescan appointallofthosesevenpersons.Foranillustrationonemust

26MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

askthequestionifoneofthesesevenpersonshadsuddenly expired and only six of the seven named persons remained, wouldtheexecutorsnotbeentitledtocreateandformthetrust atall?Whatwouldbetheconsequence,ifalltheseventrustees are appointed and on the next day one of them suddenly expires?Wouldthetrusthavetobedissolvedforwantofoneof them?Theexpressionshouldanswersthesequestionsinthe negative. And this is not only because of the use of word shouldwhateverbeitsdictionarymeaning. ATestamentary Court is not as much concerned with sound nuances of the intricate English language asmuchas deciphereven froman incorrect grammatical expression, the true meaning that the testatorputuponsuchword. 39.InRe.Rowland(deceased)SmithVs.Russell1963LRCh.D1 theconstructionofthelanguageofthewillhasbeensetoutby Lord Denning M.R (though in a dissenting judgment on anotherpoint)thus: Forinpointofprinciplethewholeobjectofconstruinga willistofindoutthetestatorsintentions,soastoseethat hispropertyisdisposedofinthewayhewished.Trueitis thatyoumustdiscoverhisintentionfromthewordsheused: butyoumustputuponhiswordsthemeaningwhichthey bore to him. If his words are capable of more than one meaning,orofawidemeaningandanarrowmeaning,as theyoftenare,thenyoumustputuponthemthemeaning which he intended them to convey, and not the meaning

27MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

whichaphilologistwouldputuponthem.Andinorderto discoverthemeaningwhichheintended,youwillnotget muchhelpbygoingtoadictionary.Itisveryunlikelythat heusedadictionary,andevenlesslikelythatheusedthe sameoneasyou.Whatyoushoulddoistoplaceyourselfas faraspossibleinhisposition,takingnoteofthefactsand circumstancesknowntohimatthetime:andthensaywhat hemeantbyhiswords. 40.HencetheCourtmustseenotthemeaningputupontheword should as argued by Mr. Jagtiani and as verified from the dictionary,butaswasintendedand,infact,acteduponbythe Testatrix herself. Hence though the executors should have appointedthesesevenpersons,inpreferencetoanyothers,the executorsmaynotappointthemthetrusteesincaseofcertain unavoidable circumstances. One of such conditions is the trustees refusing to act as such or expressing their desire to renounceorresignornotacceptthetrusteeship.Nonecanbe forced to undertake a legal obligation and incur legal responsibilities flowing therefrom. That precisely happened with the first named of the trustees who was the original executrix.Herresignationfromherexecutorshipwashonoured andacceptedbytheTestatrixherself. Thatappointmentalso had similar legal consequences. It entailed similar rights, privileges, as well as duties, functions, responsibilities and obligations. Her resignation was, therefore, respected and accepted.Hersimilarresignationorrejectiontoactasatrustee ofDaraMistrysGreenWorldmustalsobesimilarlyrespected

28MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

andaccepted.Thesameappliestotwoothertrustees.Itisnot forthosepersonswhoaremerelynamedbytheTestatrix,but whofailtotakeuptheirlegalpositiontodeterminethetrust. Thetrusthastobeunmistakablyformed.Thenameofthetrust isalsoclear.Thepurposesofthetrustmustbecarriedout.The onlydichotomyiswithregardtotheappointmentofthefirst trustees. That is not the most important ofthe requirements. The first trustees may have a very short tenure after their appointment as the first trustees. They may seek to resign. Theymaybeadjudicatedinsolvents.Theymaybeconvictedof anoffenceinvolvingamoralturpitudeortheymayexpire. In allthesecasestheywouldbeincompetenttocontractandhence incompetenttocontinueastrustees.Newtrusteeswouldhave tobeappointed.Thetrustwouldgoon.Theshowdoesgoon. The clauses of appointment of trustees is, therefore, not so sacrosanct as not to permit itself of any variation or modificationtobringitinconsonancewiththeintentionofthe Testatrixtocreateandformthetrust.Supplyof,butoneword bytheCourtinconsonancewithSection77oftheISAinthe placerelatingtoappointmentoffirsttrusteeswould,therefore, enhanceratherthanfrustratetheintentionoftheTestatrixand the consequent justice. Supply of the words would be upon ascertainingtheintentionfromareadingoftheentireWillto effectuate her intention upon construing the Will reasonably andsoastoeschewrejectinganypartofherWill. Beforethe

29MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

wordsthefollowingpersons,therefore,additionofthewords amongst,oranyof wouldservethepurpose.Similarlythe word as, however innocuous, appears to have been missed andcanbesimilarlysuppliedafterthewordnamedfollowed byacommainthesamesentence.ThedirectionoftheTestatrix wouldreadthus: ....Inthateventtheyshouldappoint andnominate, as thefirsttrusteesofthesaidtrust, amongst thefollowing persons.... OR ...inthateventtheyshouldappointandnominate,as the first trustee of the saidtrust,any of the following persons. 41.Therecanbenoprejudicecausedtothetrustbytheadditionof theaforesaidwords. Therecanbenoprejudicecausedtothe ultimatebeneficiaryalsobysuchaddition.Themostformidable of the intentions of the Testatrix being the creation and formationofthetrustcalledDaraMistrysGreenWorld,which iswritlargeinthelengthoftheWillandwhichfindsaplacein clauses12(twice)and17aswellas20oftheWill, wouldbe effectuated. The executors would have performed their functionsasperthemandateintheWillandthenoblepurpose expressedintheWillforthecreationofthesaidtrustwould havebeenattained. 42.Ofcourse,thecreationofthetrustwiththefouroftheseven named persons including three persons from one family of

30MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Respondent No.1 would indeed cause prejudice to the beneficiary and thus indeed appear inconsistent with broad intentionoftheTestatrixtohavefouroutsidersalongwiththose threepersons.Consequently,threeotherindependentoutsiders wouldhavetoreplacethethreetrusteeswhohaverejectedthe offertobetrustees,orsuchmajoritywouldotherwisehavetobe maintained. 43.ThefunctionsoftheCourtforconstructionofWillsassetoutin HalsburysLawsofEnglandFourthEdition,Volume50para370 atpage213isthus: 370. Functions of the court of construction. The cardinalruleofEnglishlawastotheeffectofawillisthat thetestatorsintention,asdeclaredbyhimandapparentin the words of his will, is effect given to it, so far and as nearlyasmaybeconsistentwithlaw.Theapplicationofthe rule requires a court of construction to consider two matters:(1)the intention ofthetestatordisclosedbythe will,and(2)themannerinwhicheffectcanbegiventothat intention. In ascertaining the testators intention, it is a settled principle that his intention is to be sought in the words that he has used in his will given, normally, their naturalandgrammaticalmeaning,butthatthatmeaning canadmitofmodificationtoaccordwitharealintention shownbythewillasawhole.

44.The principlefor ascertainingthemeaning ofthewords in a documentsuchastheWillisgivenin WilliamsLawofWills

31MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

SixthEditionVol.1atpage439thus: Wherethecourtfindsonthefaceofthewillaclear,general orparamountintentiontowhicheffectcanbegiven,anda particularorsubordinateintentiontowhich,byreasonof someruleoflaw,thecourtcannotwhollyorpartiallygive effect,orwhichisinconsistentwithordoesnotcarryoutall theintentionswhichthetestatorhasorispresumedtohave, thentheparticularintentionmustberejectedormodified, andthegeneralintentionofthetestatorcarriedintoeffect. 45.Further to give effect to the context and the circumstances underwhichabequestismadeatpage443Williamsprovides thus: If,therefore,theintentionofthetestatorcanbecollected withreasonablecertaintyfromthewholewill,withtheaid of extrinsic evidence of a kind properly admissible, that intention must have effect given to it beyond and even againsttheliteralandordinarysenseofparticularwords andexpressions,andthecourtisnotboundtoadheretothe ordinaryorlegalmeaninginsuchacase. TheintentionoftheTestatrixinformingthetrustisthemost apparent. Theformationofthetrustcanneverbesidelined. Themannerinwhicheffectcanbegiventheretowouldbebya reasonableconstructionoftheotherwiseinarticulateexpression withregardtotheappointmentofthefirsttrusteesintheWill as also the operation of the accounts of the trust by the Petitioner No.1 singly and the lack of responsibility to any

32MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

otherbeneficiaryundertheWill.Theclause,therefore,would admitofsomemodificationtoaccordherrealintentionshown intheWillasawhole. 46.Inpara397atpage231ofthesamevolumeofHalsburysLaws ofEnglandthesurroundingcircumstancesaretobeconsidered thus: 397. Evidence of surrounding circumstances. Where thewordsofthewillhavenoreasonableapplicationtothe circumstances proved, further evidence of the surrounding circumstances,including,inconstruingthewillofatestator whodiesonorafter1stJanuary1983,evidenceofhisactual intention,isadmissibletodiscoverthemeaningofthewords whichgivethewillfulleffect. InthiscasetheexecutionoftheCodicilistheintrinsicevidence whichisrequiredtobeconsideredtosettheCourtontheright trackastonotonlytheintention,butthesubsequentaction,of theTestatrix. 47.TheCourtwouldhavethusputitselfintothearmchairofthe Testatrix. 48.It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the clauses relatingtotheformationofthetrustisratherambiguousand wouldbevoidforuncertainty.UnderSection89oftheIndian SuccessionActabequestisvoidforuncertaintywhenitisnot expressiveofanydefiniteintention.Section89runsthus:

33MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Section89.Willorbequestvoidforuncertainty.A Will or bequest not expressive of any definite intention is voidforuncertainty. Illustration IfatestatorsaysIbequeathgoodstoA,orIbequeathed to A, or I leave to A all the goods mentioned in the ScheduleandnoScheduleisfound,orIbequeathmoney, wheat,oil,orthelike,withoutsayinghowmuch,thisis void. 49.A reading of the entire clause 12 may suggest the clause relatingtothedirectioncontainedintheWill,ifthetrustisnot formedinthelaterpartofclause12,infact,tobeambiguous. ButnottheclauserelatingtotheformationoftheWillinthe formerpartofclause12atall.Theexpressionadministerthe benefits as well as without being responsible to any other beneficiaryunderthisWillwouldberatherambiguousthough not so devoid of expression as to hold them void for total uncertainty. The expression administer the benefits only shows that the Petitioner No.1 would have to administer the benefitsofthetrust.Eveninthisclausethewordsofthetrust wouldhavetobeaddedtolendbetterexpressiontotheintrinsic intentionoftheTestatrix. Thefurtherexpressionoperatethe accountsoftheDaraMistrysGreenWorldsinglywoulditself showthatthetrustbythatnamewouldjusthavetobeformed, thoughitmaynothavebeenformedinthemannerspecifiedin

34MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

theearlierpartofclause12oftheWill.Similarlytheexpression without being responsible to any other beneficiary under the Will would only admit of the intent that as many as sixteen otherbeneficiarieswouldnotbeconcernedwiththetrust.The otherresponsibilityofthePetitionerNo.1,ifheadministeredthe benefitsofthetrustandifheoperatedtheaccountsofthetrust, wouldbeaspertheprocedureprescribedinthatbehalfunder the applicable law. The ambiguity, if any, is removable and could be removed only upon the aforesaid benevolent constructionandbytheadditionoftheaforesaidwordsinthe lastpartofclause12oftheWill. 50.ItisinthisbehalfthatthetextofHalsburysLawsofEngland, FourthEditionrelatingtothechapteronConstructionofWills, Volume 50 in paragraph 412 at page 242 would give the appropriate direction and guidance to the Court, and which runsthus: 412. Effect where words are ambiguous in context. Whereacontextisfoundwhichissufficienttocontrolthe meaning of the words, but the words in that context are ambiguous, contradictory or obscure, or where the words have no special meaning given them by the context, and havetwoormoremeaningsinordinaryuse(andthereisno evidenceofthetestatorsintention),thecourtadoptsthat construction which it considers most likely that, in the circumstances,thetestatormeantbythewordsofthewill, taking into account the general scope of the will and his

35MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

general purpose. Such considerations are, however, permissibleonlywhereitisaquestionofchoicebetweentwo possibleinterpretations;theyarenotlegitimatewherethe normalmeaningofthewordsoffersnodifficulty. 51.Clause 12, keeping in mind clauses 17 & 20 also, would be requiredtobeconstruedinthislight. Theseclausesrevealan unmistakableintentofcreatingthetrustwhichspecifiedobjects. The argument that it is void of uncertainty betrays only the desireofthePetitionerstoridtheestateoftheexecutors,sothat theycanfreethepropertyoftheshacklesoftrusteeshipbyany means. This is demonstrated from the previous conduct and action of Petitioner No.1 brought on record by his own documents.Heknewaboutthetrust,heknewhehadtoaccept itandgetarounditbywhatevermeans;fairorfoulandassume control. He sought to act upon it himself. In his desire to appropriatethetrustpropertyabsolutelytohimself,heassumed the role of a legatee in possession ! He executed another separatepowerofattorneyon18thMarch2008infavourofhis Constituted Attorney, aside from the Power of Attorney appointing her toprosecutethislitigation, seeking toappoint hertolookafterandmaintainthepropertyoftheTestatrixheld by him as a sole trustee of a private trust known as Dara MistrysGreenWorld!Clause12oftheWilldoesnotappoint thePetitionerNo.1asthesoletrustee;itdoesnotappointhim evenasoneofthetrustees.HeisaGermannationalresidingin

36MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Berlinandwouldnotbeinaconvenientorfitpositiontohold the fiduciary and onerous task of the trustee of the private charitabletrustpromotingessentiallyIndiancultureandwayof living. Furtherstrangelytherecitalsinthepowerofattorney show that the Petitioner No.1 audaciously executed a DeclarationofTrustdated7thMarch2008appointinghimselfas thesoletrusteeofthetrustanddeclaredthathewaspossessed of the immovable properties being the two pieces of land in AlibagonwhichDaraMistrysGreenWorldwassetup. This egregious useofpositionaswellasthepropertyisnotonly presumptions, butrathercontemptuous. This ismorethana year prior to his letters dated 15th September 2009 and 14th December2009writtenbythePetitionerNo.1totheexecutors to put him in possession of the property and this is without informingtheexecutorsofthecreationofanyallegedtrustor appointmentofhimselfasthesoletrusteeofthetrust.Infactif thethirdrecitalinthepower oftheattorneyofthePetitioner No.1weretobeacceptedastrue,forthepowerofattorney,to be validly acted upon by his constituted attorney upon the trusteebeinginpossessionoftheimmovableproperty,onefails toseewhatdrovehimtowritetotheexecutorstoputhimin possession of the properties more than a year thereafter and beforetheprobatewasobtainedbythem. Infact,thealegal action,ifany,ofPetitionerNo.1orhisconstitutedattorneyas per his direction would tantamount to Petitioner No.1 being

37MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

liabletotheestateasanexecutordesontort. Asidefroman attemptedabusiveexpropriationofhisposition,itbetraysthe charactor of Petitioner No.1 to put the Court on guard in allowinghimanypositioninthetrustinanymeasure. 52.Thisis,therefore,afitcasefortheapplicationofthedoctrineof cypresinwhichtheCourtwouldhavetomakesuchreasonable amendsaswouldbejustifiedtoeffectuatetheintentionofthe Testatrixasmuchaswouldbejustifiable. Atrueguideinthis exercisewouldbethejudgmentsoftheCourtsinEnglandand India applying the doctrine of cypres in cases of bequests, whichcouldnotbeeffectuatedstrictlyintermsofthetenorof theWill. 53.In the case of Re Wright (deceased) Blizard and Anr. Vs. Lockhart and Ors. 1954 All England Law Reports 98 a bequestoftheresiduewasgrantedtotakeeffectafterthedeath of a tenant for life. The tenant died nine years after the Testatrixherself.AtsuchdistanceoftimetheCourtwascalled upontorulewhetherthecharitablebequestwhichwastotake effect on her death was practicable. Under the charitable bequest a convalescent home was to be established and maintained. The Court held that the bequest had to be effectuated. Itwasobservedthatoncemoneywaseffectively dedicated to charity, the testatrixs next of kin who was

38MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

residuary legatee was excluded therefrom. Such a bequest wouldnotlapse.Itwasobservedthatevenifthelegacycould not be actually received after the death of the testator it becomestheabsolutepropertyofthelegateeuponthedeathof thetestatorandhencewouldnotfallwithintheresidue.Sucha legacycanbeeffectedwheneveritwaspracticableinthatcase it become practicable about a decade after the death of the testatrixwhenthetenanthavingthelifeinterestexpired. The Courtconsideredthecaseof ReSlevin([1891]2Ch.236)in whichalegacytoanorphanagewhichwasinexistenceatthe timeofthetestatorsdeath,butwhichwasdiscontinuedbefore hisassetswereadministeredfellintotheresiduebecausethe legacytotheorphanageitselflapsedandthepurposeofthegift became impracticable. However, theCourt observedthat the orphanageexistedandwascapableoftakingthegiftwhenthe testatordied.EventhecaseofRe.Soley(1900)17T.L.R.118; 8Digest346,1402whichwasconsideredinthatjudgmentin whichthetestatorbequeathedmoneyupontrusttoapersonfor lifeandafterhisdeathtobeappliedforcertainscholarshipsina college.Duringthelifetimeofthepersonwiththelifeinterest thecollegeceasedtoexist.TheCourtdirectedtheamounttobe appliedforcharitablepurposescypres. 54.Inthecaseof Re.LeptonsWillTrusts,ReLeptonsCharity Ambler&Ors.Vs.Thomas&Ors.[1971]1AllE.R.799Ch.D

39MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

separatebequestsweremadetotwocharities.Onecharitywas togetanannualsumandtheotherwastogettheresidue.The Willspecifiedthebequesttobeofaparticularamount;inthat case 3 pounds. Years after the death of the testator due to inflation the relevant value of the gift were largely distorted because one charity was given a specified sum whereas the othercharitywouldgettheremainder.ForaWillmadein1715 whenthetestatordiedin1716incomeofthetrustpropertiesin 1967cameupforconsideration.Thetrustwhichhastobepaid 3poundswhichwasearlierabout3/5th oftheannualincome would get a disproportionately less amount of the income earned by the trustees in 1967 upon inflation. The Court allowed100poundstobepaidinplaceof3poundsunderthe extendeddoctrineofcypresupontheconstructionoftheWill byconsideringthatthechangesintheincomeandthevalueof the money would completely distort the benefits under the respectivetrusts.ItwasheldthattheCourthastoconsidernot whatwasstatedbythetestatoritself,butwhathehadmeant. TheCourtobservedthattheintentionofthe gift wastodivide thesumaccordingtovalueof1715inaparticularratio. The intention would be defeated if one charity took the specified amountandtheratiobecamegrosslydisproportionatedueto inflation. Inthatcasetheratio3:5in1715became3:791in 1967.Consequently,underSection13oftheCharitiesAct1960 thealterationofthegiftunderthedoctrineofcyprescameto

40MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

bemade. 55.InthecaseofReWoodhams(Deceased)LloydsBankLtd.Vs. LondonCollegeofMusic&Ors.[1981]1AllER202Ch.D thetestatorwhowasamusicianandteacherofmusicmadea charitablebequestoftheresidueofhispropertytobeusedby music colleges or music schools for orphans from named charitable homes. The colleges refused to accept the gift on grounds of impracticability of restricting the scholarships as requiredbytheWill.Theywerepreparedtoacceptthegiftonly withoutconditions. Itwastobeconsideredwhetherthegift failed.TheCourtobserved,uponconstructionoftheWill,that therestrictionsofscholarshipswereaninessentialpartofthe testators scheme; the dominant charitable intention was to furthermusicbyfundingthescholarships.TheCourt,therefore, allowed the scholarships for the charitable bequests to be effectuatedwithouttheconditionthattheybeofferedtothose orphansfromspecifichomeswhocouldnotbeadmittedtothe benefitsofthemusiccollege. 56.ItwasheldthatnotwithstandingtheforminwhichtheWillwas expressed,theparamountintentionwastomakeagiftforthe generalcharitablepurposeofmusicsothatevenifaparticular restriction was found impracticable to give effect to the particularpurposeexpressedintheWill,theCourtcould,bya

41MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

scheme,applythelegacyforageneralcharitablepurpose.The dominant purpose of the bequest was to further musical education by funding scholarships in two colleges. Hence though the testator had chosen orphans from certain named homeswhomostlikelyneededassistanceformusic,itwasnot found to be such essential part of the scheme that the scholarship should be restricted to them and the testators charitable purpose could be modified by the Court without frustratinghisintention.Accordinglyitwasheldthatthetrust didnotfailsinceitcouldbeeffectuatedbyamodificationby deleting the restriction contained in the Will. The Court consideredwhetherthetestatorstrueintentionwastofunda particularclassofpoorpeopleorwhetheritwastopropagate music.Itobservedthat: Ageneralcharitableintention,then,maybesaidtobea paramountintentiononthepartofadonortoeffectsome charitable purpose which the court can find a method of putting into operation, notwithstanding that it is impracticabletogiveeffecttosomedirectionbythedonor whichisnotanessentialpartofhistrueintentionnot, thatistosay,partofhisparamountintention. ConsideringtheearliercasestheCourtobservedthatthemode bywhichthecharitablepurposeswastobecarriedintoeffect wasnotthesubstanceofthelegacies. Theactualbequestto charityrequiredtheapplicationofthedoctrineofcypres.

42MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

57.TheCourtreferredtothecaseof AttorneyGeneralforNew South Wales Vs. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd.(1940) 63 CLR 209at210thus: The construction of the language in which the trust is expressed seldom contributes much towards a solution. Moreistobegainedbyexaminationofthenatureofthe charitabletrustitselfandwhatisinvolvedintheauthors planorproject. 58.Inthecontrarycaseof ReMitchellsWillTrusts(1966)110 SolJo291alsoconsideredbytheCourt,thetestatoraccordeda lifeinteresttoahospitalforprovidingfourbedsonlyfortheuse ofinjuredworkmenfrommines.Thehospitalcouldnotsetup fourbedsforthatpurposeastheywouldhavebeenunderused. Thehospitalcouldhavehoweverprovidedfourbedsthoughnot exclusivelyforthoseworkmen.ThegiftintheWillcouldnotbe construedasagifttothehospital;itwasagifttotheworkmen ofthemines.Therefore,iffourbedsweremaintainedforthe hospital,generallyitwouldhavefrustratedthetestatorsevident intention to benefit miners from the named pits. Consequently,thedoctrineofcyprescouldnotbeappliedand thegiftfailed,asamodificationofthetermsofthegiftcould notbemadeagainstthebequesttotheminesworkers. 59.TheCourtfurtherconsideredthecaseofAttorneyGeneralfor NewSouthWalesVs.PerpetualTrusteeCo.Ltd.,(1940)63

43MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

CLR209inwhichaparticularpropertynamedMillyMillywas givenontrustfortrainingorphans.Itwasfoundtobetoosmall and insufficient and was held capable of modification by the saleofthepropertyapplyingtheproceedsforthepurposeofthe sametrainingfortheorphansasdirectedundertheWill. 60.Theconclusionofallowingthebequestforthescholarshipin musical education though not precisely to the boys of a particular orphanage could be squarely applied to the will in this case. The dominant intention of the Testatrix was for creationofthetrustforpropagationofyoga,naturopathyetc., inthenameandstyleofDaraMistrysGreenWorld. There canbenomodificationofthatbequest.TheTestatrixdesireda trusttobeformed.TheseventrusteesnamedbytheTestatrix wasnotthedominantintentionoftheTestatrix.Ofcourse,the Testatrixcouldhaveconsideredoffsettingtheimpact ofthree trusteesfromonefamilybyfourindependenttrusteestoobtain anindependentdemocraticworkingofthetrust.Thathowever canbeobtainedbylessthanseventrustees,firstorlater.Itonly requiresonemoretrusteefromtheindependenttrusteesthan would be from the family members of the Respondent No.1. TheintentoftheTestatrixofhavingademocraticsolutiontothe trustproblemscouldbeeffectuatedbytheexecutors.Similarly theintrinsicevidenceintheCodicilpreparedbytheTestatrixis thatthoughthefirstnamedtrusteewasshowntobeareluctant

44MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

executrixitdidnotcompeltheTestatrixtonameanotherinher place. Ifthattrusteerefusedtoactorevenexpiredthetrust cannotfail.Thesamewouldapplyformorethanonetrustees. Thetrustwouldhavetobefounded,butwithlessernumberof trustees. Modification is required to allow the independent outsiderstohaveareasonablemajority.Thedoctrineofcypres demands that the Court modified the trust deed accordingly. Upon such modification in the names of first trustees, which wouldbeatemporaryappointmentuntiloneorsomeofthem mayceasetobetrustees,thedominantintentionoftheTestatrix wouldbehonouredandperpetuated. 61.FurtherinthecaseofRedfernVs.Bryning1877LR.6Ch.D. 133theCourtprovidedanadditionalwordwhichcouldberead intotheWilluponseeingtheintentofthetestator.Thetestator lefttwosonsandfivedaughters. Hegave1/7th shareofthe estate to each of them. He named the five daughters. He furtherspecifiedthatafterthedeathofeachofthosedaughters theirchildrenwouldgettheir1/5th share. Thisprovisionwas madeseparatelyshowingthechildrenofthedaughters.Whilst doingsothenameofonedaughterwasmissed.Yeteachofthe four named daughters children were given 1/5th share. The CourtconstruedtheWill,toreadnotonlythebequestforthe childrenoffournameddaughters,butalsoofthefifthdaughter whoremainedtobementioned.

45MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

62.Inthecaseof MaddisonVs.Gill1908LR2Ch.D1908 the Court construed an inaccurate enumeration in the Will. The testatorgaveresiduetoA,Bandthesixchildrennowlivingof C. OnthatdateallbutoneofthechildrenofChadalready expired. TheCourtconstruedthemistakefromthedominant intentionofthetestatorwhichwasreadintotheWilltobenefit thememberssodescribed.TheCourt,therefore,gaveeffectto itbyrejectingtheinaccuratenumberofchildrendescribed. Thejudgmentof JusticeCozensHardy,M.R., referredtothe judgmentofLordJusticeLindley,atpage195thus: IftheCourtcomestotheconclusion,fromastudyofthe will, that the testators real intention was to benefit the wholeofaclass,theCourtshouldnotandwillnotdefeat thatintentionbecausethetestatorhasmadeamistakein the number he has attributed to that class. The Court rejectsaninaccurateenumeration. 63.InthecaseofWickhamVs.Haygarth1913LR3Ch.D9 the principlesofconstructionoftheWillsbysupplyingtheomission takingintoaccounttheintentionofthetestator,whichcanbe collected with reasonable certainty from the entire will was laiddownthus: theintention....musthaveeffectgiventoit,beyond,and

46MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

even against, the literal sense of particular words and expressions. The intention, when legitimately proved, is competentnotonlyto fix thesenseof ambiguous words, buttocontrolthesenseevenofclearwords,andtosupply the place of express words, in cases of difficulty or ambiguity. 64.InthecaseofRadhaSundarDuttaVs.Mohd.JahadurRahim AIR1959SC24(V .46C5)themostelementaryinterpretation ofdeedsanddocumentshasbeenheldtoputsuchconstruction astogiveeffecttoalltheclausesratherthanrenderoneofthe clauses nugatory, if the document is admissible of two constructions under the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat. 65.Inthecaseof Smt.PramodKumariBhatiaVs.OmPrakash Bhatia AIR 1980 SC 446 certain words were supplied to effectuatetheintentionoftheTestatorintheWillwhichdonot otherwiseshowaccuratelyand/orcompletelythemeaningof the expression upon reading of the Will as a whole. The SupremeCourtdecipheredtheintentionoftheTestatorthathis son alone and none else would be the ultimate owner ofhis properties. InthatcasetheTestatorspecifiedthathissonwas totakethepropertiesafterhiswifepredeceasedhim,buthedid notspecifythathissonshouldtakethepropertiesifhiswife survivedhimandenjoyedthelifeestategiventoherunderthe Will.

47MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

UponreadingtheWillwhichshowedthatthedaughterinlaw ofthetestator,whowasthewifeofanotherpredeceasedson, livedseparatelywithherdaughterandanotherdaughterofthe testatorwhowasdirectedtobemarriedoffaspercustom,the SupremeCourtconsideredthattheintentionofthetestatorwas not that either of his grandchildren or his daughterinlaw wouldsucceedtohisestateandthatonlyhissonwouldsucceed whetherornothiswifepredeceasedhim. Theentirebequest, therefore,cametobegrantedtothesonbytheSupremeCourt upon supplying the required words. The Supreme Court considered the case of William Abbott Vs. Eliza Middleton (1858) 7 HLC 68 in which the words without leaving any childweresuppliedbytheCourtaftertheworddyinginthe WilloftheTestator.TheSupremeCourtaccordinglyonlyread intotheWillthebequestinfavourofthesonevenifhiswife didnotpredeceasehim,whichwasnotexpresslystatedinthe Will. 66.Consequently,theargumentonbehalfofthePetitionersthatifa single trustee named in the Will would not accept the trusteeship none can be appointed and the possession of the property must itself be handed over to the Petitioner No.1 would have to be rejected as that would not only go diametricallycontrarytotheveryintentionoftheTestatrixin

48MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

formingacharitabletrustwithasmanyasseventrusteesforthe purposesmentionedtherein,itwouldtantamounttorejecting anessentialpartoftheWilloftheTestatrix.Suchconstruction beingnotreasonablecannotbeaccepted.EvenifthePetitioner No.1contendsthathewouldformthetrustandhewouldbethe soletrustee,hisoffercannotbeaccepted.Therewouldbenone tosuperviseorcontrolhisactivities.Hewouldintermshavea carteblanchetodowhathepleases.Hemaydissolvethetrust soonafteritsformation.Hemaynotestablishthetrustwhichis specificallydirectedtobeestablished. Hemayadministerthe benefits only for and on behalf of his son the ultimate beneficiary. He would, operate the account, if there be any, himself without being responsible not only to the other beneficiariesundertheWill,butalsotoanyothertrusteesorthe executorswhowouldrequiretoseetheadministrationofthe estateoftheTestatrixthrough. 67.It may be mentioned that since the very inception of the correspondence and even prior to the grant of probate and pendingtheprobatepetition,PetitionerNo.1,whohasbeenin ratherindecenthaste,hasonlysoughtpossessionofthetrust propertiesandtoadministerandmanagethesameonbehalfof hisson.Hisintentionsarehenceapparentanditisthedutyof theCourttocontainhiszealintakingoverpossessionofthe estateoftheTestatrixwhodesiredthetrustpropertyunderthe

49MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

trusteeshipofsevenothers. 68.ThePetitionerNo.1maybeentitledtoadministerthebenefits ofthetrustonbehalfofhissonandtooperatetheaccountsof thetrustonlyifthetrustisnotformedbytheexecutorsinthe manner set out in clause 12 of the Will. Even in such a contingency Petitioner No.1 would never be entitled to possession of the property absolutely. Petitioner No.2 would never have an absolute bequest. The Petitioner No.1 would havetoworkunderthetrustformedbytheexecutors,which would be none other than Dara Mistrys Green World and operate the accounts of such trust. If however the trust is formed,thelatterpartofclause12wouldnotcomeintoplay.It wouldbeoperativeonlyiftheexecutorsfailtoformorrefrain fromformingthetrustmandatedtobeformed.Theexecutors havenotrefrainedfromdoinganythinginadministrationofthe estateoftheTestatrix. 69.Consequently,asarguedonbehalfofthePetitioners,merelyby reasonofrejectionofthreeoftheseventrusteestheentiretrust cannot be tossed away. The Petitioner No.1 cannot be given possession of the property as demanded by him. Even the PetitionerNo.1cannotbemadeasoletrusteeleavingtohimthe absolutediscretiontodissolvethetrustathiswill. Morethan onesoletrusteeisinfactthespecificintentionintheWill.Seven

50MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

trustees cannot be brought down to a sole trustee. However, sevennumberoftrusteescanbemodifiedtoalessernumberas aforesaid.SinceeveryclauseintheWillhastobegiveneffect to only the subjective word should cannot make the Court causeagiftundertheWilltofail. 70.Thetrustwouldbeformedinaccordancewiththedrafttrust deed submitted by the executors to Court with such of the modifications as it would admit andrequire. The draft trust deed,therefore,deservestobeconsidered. 71.ItisinthislightthattheTrustDeeddraftedandproducedby theRespondentsistobemodifiedbytheCourttobringitin consonancewiththeintentofTestatrix. 72.TheRespondentsgotexecutedatrustdeedcalledDaraMistrys Green World after the probate was obtained. It has been registered on 2nd August 2010 and upon which the requisite stamp duty and registration charges have been paid. The Petitionershavelegitimatelytakenexceptiontocertainclauses ofthetrustdeedasdraftedandexecutedbytheRespondents. Their imputation upon certain other clauses cannot be countenancedinviewofthelegalrightsofPetitionerNo.2(and notPetitionerNo.1)asthebeneficiarywhichcanbeexercised and sued upon when necessitated. All such clauses may be

51MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

consideredseparatelythus: Under Clause 3 of the said trust deed the executors have soughttoputrestrictionswithregardtothecreationofthird party rights in the trust properties except as specifically providedinthetrustdeeditself. Thiswouldbeinaidoflendingperpetuitytothetrust. UnderClause5ofthetrustdeedthedirectionsintheWillwith regardtothecashamountobtainedfromtheinvestmentsofthe Testatrixaredirectedtobedepositedinthenameofthetrust. Similarly a bank account in the trust name is directed to be opened in which the amounts of the investments would be deposited by the Respondents as the executors. Further the executorsareempoweredtooperatethebankaccountinsuch capacityuntilthetrustisregistered,whenthebankaccountof thetrustwouldbehandedovertothetrustees. Therecanbenoquarrelwiththeclausewhichintermscarries outthedirectionsoftheTestatrixundertheWillwithregardto thespecificlegaciesmadetothetrust. Clause15ofthetrustdeedinteraliarequiresnotlessthantwo andnotmorethanfivetrusteestobeappointed.

52MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

If three of the five trustees are from one family, which the Petitionerstakesuchstrongobjectionto,thedemocraticeffect ofthetrustmaybecompletelydilutedandhencetheclauseof the number of trustees as drafted cannot be allowed by the Court.Sinceseventrusteesofagiventrustindeedappeartobe one too many, the Respondents have, as per usual terms for trust deeds of the kind, sought to have minimum two and maximumfivetrustees.Giventhespecificnamesoftheseven trustees by the Testatrix, the trust deed containing maximum five trustees may appear to be inconsistent with her desire. Giventhefactthatthreeofthemwouldbefromonefamily,it wouldbedestructiveofherintention,ifnotcauseadeathknell to the very continuation of the trust. The Court would, therefore,notcountenanceappointmentofanyfivepersonsor lessthanfivepersonsastrusteesperse.Forsolongasthethree personsfromonefamilycontinuetoactastrusteestherewould have to be four other independent outsiders for the trust to continue in a healthy democratic atmosphere as would have beenexpectedbytheTestatrix. Therefore,ratherthanhaving minimumormaximumnumberoftrusteesthetrustwouldhave to have such number of minimum trustees as would have at least one more of the independent trustee than the three trustees of one family. The trust can have more than that number.Thefirstofsuchtrusteeswouldbeinthediscretionof

53MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

theexecutorstoappointundertheaforesaidparameters.Infact, theRespondentsastheexecutorsarestatedtohavesuggested the names of three eligible persons having affiliation to qualifications required and expected of the trustees for the specified objects of the trust. Further trustees would be appointedasperprocedureestablishedbylawunderwhichthe trustwouldbegoverned.Suchdirectionwouldeffectuatethe Testatrixs intention as far as possible. It would reasonably construetheWillwithoutrejectinganypartthereof. Clause 22 of the trust deed requires the firm of the C.A appointedbytheRespondentstomakeupaccountsshowingthe income of the trust which would be paid to the ultimate beneficiary. Petitioner No.2 the nephew of the Testatrix who is the beneficiary,wouldinfactbeentitledonlytosuchoftheincome as could be generated from the properties upon which Dara MistrysGreenWorldshallfunctionasidefrom livingonthe properties and managing in the properties personally, if he wished.Alltrustaccountsarerequiredtobeaudited.Petitioner No.2 would be entitled to inspect the accounts and sue the trustees if it is found wanting. This right is required to be exercisedbonafideandwithinlimits.

54MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Under Clause28ofthetrustdeedupontherelinquishmentor retirementofanyofthetrusteestheremainingtrusteeswould beentitledtoappointanyothertrustees. This is normally done. No fault can be found with the said clause.ThePetitionerswouldnotbeentitledtoappointanyof thetrustees.Howevertheappointmentofthetrusteesmustbe made bona fide and such as would facilitate and further the intentionoftheTestatrix. Under Clause30 ofthetrustdeed theright todissolve has beengiventothetrusteesastheydeemfit. This can be done only by the appropriate Court under an applicationforsuchpurpose. Hencethoughthelatterpartof theclausemaynotstandjudicialscrutiny,theformerwouldbe in terms of the norms of trust which could be considered at appropriatestagebytheappropriateCourtforitsbonafides.The argument on behalf of the Petitioner is that the beneficiaries mustbeinvolvedintheprocess. Howeveratappropriatetime the dissolution, if any, of the trust can be consideredonlyin accordance with the procedure established by law relating to privateTrusts.

55MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Clause31ofthetrustdeedallowsthetrusteestodisposeoffthe partofthepropertyastheydeemitnecessaryandproper,ifthe income of the trust is insufficient to meet the objects of the trust. TheexceptiontakentothesaidclausebythePetitionersisnot unfounded. Under these exigencies the trust at the relevant timewouldbeinthesamepositionasthetrustwhichcouldbe createdorformed. Ifsuchacontingencyarises,theonly resultwouldbetoallowthePetitionerNo.1toadministerthe benefitsofthetrustandoperateitsaccountsonbehalfofhis son, Petitioner No.2 without being responsible to any other beneficiaryundertheWill,butwithall responsibilitiesasthe lawenjoins.Consequently,theempowermentofthetrusteesto dispose off a part of the property cannot be allowed by the Court as being wholly inconsistent with the intention of the Testatrix. Clause33 ofthetrustdeedallowsthetrusteestoadd,alter, modifythetrustdeed,whichalsodoesnotfindfavourwiththe Petitioners.However,themodification,additionoralterationis specifiedtobetoachievethedesiredresultsandonbehalfof theCenter.

56MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

Upon the clarification that such addition, modification or alterationshouldachievetheresultsdesiredbytheTestatrixand not the trustees on behalf of the Center, such addition, modificationoralterationcanbeallowed. 73.Uponthesecontentionsthetrustdeedmaybedirectedtobe amended and modified in respect of some of the aforesaid clausesthus: (a) Thelargestsingledisputewiththeuseofthetrustis on the premise that the family of the Respondent No.1 wouldmonopolisethetrustbyvirtueofitsmajorityinthe trust.Hencethemostsubstantialamendmenttothetrust isrequiredtobeandmustbedirectedtobeinclause15 forittobeappropriatelywordedeithertohaveminimum seventrusteesatallrelevanttimeswhowouldfurtherthe intentionoftheTestatrixintheworkingofthetrustorto havesuchnumberofminimumtrusteesaswouldenable the independent outsiders to gain a majority over the familymembersoftheRespondentNo.1. (b)Theaccountsofthetrustcan,asprovidedbylaw,be inspectedbythePetitionerNo.2asthebeneficiaryandthe PetitionerNo.2wouldbeentitledtotakerecoursetolaw

57MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

inrespectoftheaccountsgeneratingtheincomeofthe trusttowhichhewouldbeentitledasperthemandate containedinclause12allowinghimtostayandmanage inthetrustpropertiesandasperlaw. (c) The relinquishment or retirement of the trustees wouldnecessarilyrequireothertrusteestobeappointed bythethenprevailingtrustees,butsubjecttothe bona fidesofsuchappointment. (d) Thedissolutionofthetrustwouldonlybesubjectto the orders of the Court upon the application of the trusteeswithnoticetothePetitionerNo.2astheultimate beneficiary. Petitioner No.1 would then be entitled to administerthebenefitsofthetrustoroperateitsaccounts. (e) TheotheraforesaidclausestowhichthePetitioners havetakenexceptionneednomodification. 74.Uponthetrustdeeddated2nd August2010beingamendedas abovebytheRespondentsastheexecutorsandasthepartyof thefirstpartthereto,theactualworkingofthetrustshallbe entitled to be commenced. It would be for the executors to diligentlypursuethesaidexercise.Itisonlyinthisregardthat theaforesaiddirectionsfortheimplementationoftheWillof

58MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

theTestatrixunderareasonabletimeframecanbepassedas prayedforinprayers(e)and(h)ofthePetition. 75.Hencethefollowingorder. 1. Prayers(a),(f)and(g)arerefused. 2. Prayers(b),(c)and(d)areworkedoutasalreadycomplied. 3. Directionsunderprayers(e)and(h)arepassedasfollows: TheRespondentsshall,within3weeksfromtoday,amend andalterthetrustdeeddated2ndAugust2010orexecute afreshtrustdeedsoastoalterclauses15,22,28,30and 31asfollows: (a) The minimumnumberof trustees shall be seven or such other number as would have at least one more trustee from amongst the independent outside trustees otherthanthefamilymembersofRespondentNo.1and maximum number of trustees shall be such further number of trustees as may be deemed fit by the Respondents so as to give the independent outsiders a majorityatallrelevanttimes. (b) Clause22shallcontainaprovisothatthePetitioner No.2shallbeentitledtoinspecttheaccountsofthetrust

59MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

annually. (c)Aprovisoshallbeaddedtoclause28showingthatthe newtrusteesappointedintheplaceofthetrusteeswho haveresignedorwhohaverelinquishedthetrusteeshipor have retired are responsive to the specific needs of the trustinpropagationofIndianCulture,Yogaandtheother objectsofthetrustspecifiedinClause12oftheWillofthe Testatrix. (d)Thewordorinline3ofclause30shallbedeleted. Thewordsoranyotherjudicialforumhavingauthority ofdecidingtheissuerelatedtothedissolutionofthetrust andalsothepropertyofthetrustshallbedeleted. (e) Thepowertothetrusteestodisposeoffanypartof thepropertyofthetrustcannotandshallnotbegranted. Clause31ofthetrustdeedshallspecifythatiftheincome ofthetrustisinsufficienttomeettheobjectsofthetrust (andnotdeemedinsufficientonlybythePetitionerNo.2 ashisincome)thePetitionerNo.1wouldbecomeentitled to administer the benefits of the trust on behalf of the Petitioner No.2, the sole beneficiary of the trust, and operate the accounts of the trust being Dara Mistrys Green World singly provided however that he shall

60MPT.63.2010-TP.566.2008-closed for order on 23.2.2011.sxw

continue and be able to continue the purposes and activitiesofthetrustandmeettheobjectsofthetrustto derivesufficientincometherefrom. (f) Itshallbespecifiedinclause33thatthealterations, additions or modifications of the trust shall be allowed onlytotheendthatitachievestheresultsdesiredbythe Testatrixasspecifiedbyherinclause12oftheWill. 4. The Petition is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid directions. 5. ThecostsoftheRespondentsofthislitigationshallcomeout oftheestateoftheTestatrix.

(SMT.ROSHANDALVI,J.)