LexPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER versus RAGINI NARAYAN AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E [2016] 8 S.C.R. 790 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER v. RAGINI NARAYAN AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 8895 of2012) SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 [RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] · Trust: Appointment of Donor Trustee - Respondent-Plaintiff's husband was the original Donor Trustee - Original Trust Deed amended in 1994, registered on 30.01.1995, provided that after the life time of respondent's husband, either his senior most lineal descendant or a member of his family nomin(lted by him or his wife, shall be the Donor Trustee - Suit by Respondent, relying on this amendment, for a declaration that she is the Donor Trustee of the Trust after the death of her husband - Appellant-State government and respondent No.2 (States appointee as Donor Trustee) contended that the said amendment being without the approval of the State Government is inoperative - Trial Court decreed suit in favour of respondent - High Court upheld the decree passed by Trial Court - On appeal, held: There was approval of the State Government to the 1994 Amendment in terms of documents relied on by the appellant-State govt. and respondent No.2 itself- Further, the 1994 amendment mentioned that after the lifetime of respondent's husband, either his senior most lineal descendant or a member of his family or his wife was to succeed, and if this mode of succession F fails, then the State Government were to exercise the powers of Donor Trustee - The mode of succession did not fail as at the time of death of original Donor Trustee, respondent was his wife and thus was validly nominated as Donor Trustee. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 Though on behalf of the appellants and the Respondent no.2, it is contended that the State Government had not given any approval to the 1994 amendment relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff, but certain documents on record clearly show that there was approval of the State Government to the H disputed amendment of 1994. One of such documents is filed by 790 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA v. 791 RAGIN! NARAYAN ' the Respondent No.2 with the additional documents, which is A copy of the 'Deed of Appointment' of the Government of Karnataka as successor Donor Trustee of executant BSN (Respondent-Plaintiff's husband). The appellants cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. On one hand they rely on this document to nominate Respondent No.2, and appoint B him as Donor Trustee, and on the other hand, they are not ready to accept the approval of State Government to the Amendment Deed registered on 30.01.1995 on the basis of which the executant (Respondent-Plaintiff's husband) has exercised the powers in nominating the Donor Trustee. [Para 16)(799-C-F] 1.2 Another important document throwing light on this C point is copy of the lette.r issued by the Government of Karnataka to the Member Secretary of RM.S. Trust, Bangalore appointing Respondent No.2 as Donor Trustee. From this letter, it is clear that Deed of Appointment dated 13.08.1995 was referred by the State Government, and it cannot be said that the State Government D had not approved the Resolution dated 10.12.1994 on the basis of which Deed of Amendment was registered on 30.01.1995. [Paras 17 and 18)(800-B-C; 801-C] 2.1 By amendment of 1994, it was mentioned that after the life time of respondent-plaintiff's husband, his senior most lineal E descendant or a member of his family or his wife was to succeed, and if mode of succession fails, then powers of Donor Trustee were to be exercised by the State Government. [Para 18)(801-F- G] 2.2 There is concurrent finding of fact of the courts below F that respondent-plaintiff was the wife of BSN Donor Trustee, at the time of his death, as such the mode of succession mentioned in para (IV)(i) did not fail. Whether it is amendment of 1978 or 1995 the expression "or his wife" is there. The words-'or his wife' in the amendment of 1978 to which the appellants admittedly approved refer to wife of the Donor Trustee. Same expression is G retained in the 30.01.1995 amendment. The amendment of 1978 was, admittedly, approved by the State of Karnataka. Insofar as the amendment of 1994 is concerned, it has already been held that in view of the letter of the State Government dated 7.11.1995 the consent of the State Government to the amendment of 1994 H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A can be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.