SHEIKH ABDUL. KA YUM versus MULLA ALIBHAI

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 17-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, • 
3 S.C.R. 
:-::lUP H.EME COURT REPORTS 
623 
SHEIKH ABDUL. KA YUM 
v. 
MULLA ALIBHAI 
(. ·. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. C. DAS GuPTA, JJ.) 
Trust-Properties vested in trustees-Trustees creating 
new body-,-Entrustment qf magement and properties to new body 
-Legality of-Ab<lication anrC delegation by trustees-If and 
when permissible. 
In 1909 six persons created the Burhanpur Trust for 
governing, managing and administering the aff'airs of a 
school in Burhanpur. Under the Trust deed 18 persons were 
appointed as the trustees and all movable and immovable 
properties connected with the school were vestt:d in them. 
Clause 5 of the Trust deed empowered the trustees "to appoint 
new trustees from time to time'' and to frame rules and 
regulations for the benefit and efficient running of the school. 
In 1917 the Hakimia Society was formed by the trustees for 
the purpose of running the school and 12 persons were named 
members of the governing council in which all the properties 
of the school were vested. 
Since then ten members of the 
governing council have been administering the properties 
in respect of which a trust was created in 1909. A suit 
under s.92 Code of Civil Procedure wa, filed for removal of 
the ten members of the governing council, .inter alia, on the · 
ground the Hakimia Society and the ten members of the 
governing council had not been validly appointed trustees 
of the trust properties. 
Held, that 'the ten members of the governing council 
of the Hakirnia Society were not validily appointed trustees 
of the Trust properties and were liable to be removed from 
the management thereof, 
The trustees of the Burhanpur 
Trust had no power to create another body of men as 
trustees in their own place. Trustees who have once entered 
upon the trust cannot renounce their duties and IiabilitiPs 
except with the permission of the Court or with the consent 
of the beneficiaries or by the authority of the trust deed itself. 
Nor can trustees delegate their offices or any of their functions 
except in some specified cases. 
In the present case there was 
delegation of all the powers and functions of the trustees 
amounting to abdication in favour of a new body of men. 
The· trustees sought to divest themselves of the properties 
y~stc;d in them by the trust deed and to ves~ them i~ ~li<i 
--
1112 
-~. 
Sheikh Abd 1,/ 
fiovum 
v. 
' JI ulla Alibh • i 
Dar Gupe.J J. 
624 
SUPREME COURT H.EPORTS [1963] 
new body. Such abdication could not be permitted. There 
was nothing in the trust deed which allowed such an 
abdication and substitution of trustees. 
The provision in 
cl. 5 for appointment of new trustees only permitted the 
old trustees to add to their !\Umber. 
Nor did the power to 
frame rules and regulations authorise the trustees to give up 
the management of the school themselves or to divest them-
selves of the properties entrusted to them by the trust deed 
and vest them in other persons. 
Q1VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals 
Nos. 406 and 407 of l 960. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment 
and decree dated October 30, 1956, of the former 
Nagpur High Court (Now Madhya Pradesh) in F. A. 
Nos. 79 and 85 of 1949. 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of lridia, 
J.B. Dadachanji, O. O. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, 
for tl\e a,ppellants (in C. A. No. 406/60) and Respon-
dent Nos. 12 and 14 to 17 (in C.A. No. 407/60). 
O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, 
J. ~. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath, 8. N. Andley and 
P. L. Vohra, for the appellants (in C. A. Nu. 407/60) 
and resrondent Nos. l to 3 (in <J. A. No. 406/60). 
B. Sen an.d I. N. Shroff, for respondent Nos. 
_ 5 and 6 (in C. A. No. 406/60) and Respondent Nos. 
· 1 and 2 (in C. A. No. 407 of 60). 
1962. August 17. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAs GUPTA, J.-This unfortunate litigation 
over a school which was started sixty years ago is 
one of the unhappy consequences of a feud that 
raised its ugly head in the Da.udi Bohra Co'llmunity 
many . years ago. 
The School was started at 
Burhanpur by certain members of the Daudi Bohra 
Community of Burhanpur in the year 1902. It was 
named Madrasai Faize Ifakimia and its object was to 
/,
-.. 
3 S.C.R. 
BUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f\25 
impart religious and secular education to boys of 
the Daudi Bohra Community. Funds were collected 
for the purpose of the school from the members of 
that community for the maintenance of the school. 
In the year 1908 English class'ls wer'l added to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.