V. PRAKASH @ G.N.V. PRAKASH versus M/S. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU & SONS’ CHARITIES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 09-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 948
948
V. PRAKASH @ G.N.V. PRAKASH
v.
M/s. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU & SONS’ CHARITIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3791 of 2022)
MAY 09, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Trusts Act, 1882– Validity of Appellant’s claim to the office of
founder trustee in the respondent-Trust– Held: The overwhelming
evidence produced by the appellant in the form of Aadhaar Card
issued by the Government of India as also his Income Tax
assessments in India based on the certification of Chartered
Accountant of his fulfilling the requirement of ‘resident’ in terms of
s.6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been taken to be of little value
by the High Court after counting the number of days of the
appellant’s stay in India and then questioning that the certificates
were not showing as to for how many days he was in Madras
Presidency–Also, appellant’s ownership and possession of property
in India, including residential property; having bank accounts in
India; being assessed as resident for the purpose of Income Tax
Act, 1961 have all been brushed aside by the High Court by mere
count of number of days of stay in India– Mere holding of Green
Card of the United States of America cannot be treated as decisive
of the matter in the present case–When examining the matter from
the point of view of spirit of Scheme of Administrationgoverning
the Trust, the concept of representation of the branch of founder
trustee needs to be respected and, in that regard, claim of the
descendant like the appellant cannot be lightly brushed aside by a
mere count of number of days of stay in India while ignoring all
other features and factors showing his choice of staying in India–
Trial Court rightly analysed the evidence on record and arrived at
a just conclusion in upholding the claim of the appellant to the
office of founder trustee in the respondent-Trust as the representative
of the branch of ‘PSGNN’– Impugned judgment set aside – Judgment
and decree of the Trial Court restored – Thus, the appointment of
respondent no.10 in the Trust stands annulled – Appellant entitled
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
to hold the office of founder trustee representing ‘PSGNN’ branch–
Income Tax Act, 1961– s.6 – Estoppel – Principle of res judicata.
Deeds and Documents– Rules of construction – Construction
of terms of Scheme of Administration (SOA) governing the
respondent-Trust and their application to the facts of present case
(more particularly regarding abode/residence of plaintiff-appellant)–
Discussed – Interpretation of Statutes.
Words and Phrases – ‘resides’ – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
1.1 The High Court seems to have approached the case
from an altogether wrong angle and has proceeded on irrelevant
considerations while ignoring the relevant factors and material
considerations. The High Court seems to have picked up the
residential requirement in the qualification for trusteeship in the
Scheme of Administration as being of strict physical presence,
de hors the context and de hors the purpose.The overwhelming
evidence produced by the plaintiff-appellant in the form of Aadhaar
Card issued by the Government of India as also his Income Tax
assessments in India based on the certification of Chartered
Accountant of his fulfilling the requirement of ‘resident’ in terms
of Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been taken to be of
little value by the High Court after counting the number of days
of the appellant’s stay in India and then questioning that the
certificates were not showing as to for how many days he was in
Madras Presidency. Even in that regard, the High Court, though
referred to the decision in Mst Jagir Kaur but failed to take note
of the ratio therein. The appellant’s ownership and possession of
property in India, including residential property; having bank
accounts in India; being assessed as resident forthe purpose of
Income Tax Act, 1961 have all been brushed aside by the High
Court by mere count of number of days of stay in India. This
Court is unable to endorse this approach.[Paras 23 and 24][980-
A-E]
Mst Jagir Kaur &Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [1964] 2 SCR
73– referred to.
1.2 In paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, the High
Court has observed that the spirit of the provisions prescribing
V. PRAKASH @ G.N.V. PRAKASH v. M/s. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY
NAIDU & SONS’ CHARITIES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
qualificati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.