Posted On by &filed under Delhi High Court, High Court.


Delhi High Court
Amrit Lal Kohli & Anr. vs Harbans Lal Kohli & Ors. on 18 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 VIIAD Delhi 1139, AIR 2001 Delhi 24
Author: S Agarwal
Bench: S Agarwal

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. The plaintiffs in this suit are seeking a decree of declaration that the trust deed dated 22nd January, 1966 in respect of their 2/5th share in plot no.32, Block – E measuring 250 sq. yds situated at New Delhi South Extension, Part II, New Delhi (for short the suit property) has extinguished.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration alleging therein that on 13th January, 1965 by a registered sale deed the plaintiffs purchased the suit property and thereafter raised construction on it with their own funds; the ground floor was let out to the State Bank of India while part of it is in occupation of the defendants 3 and 4; plaintiffs had three sons namely, Sanjay Kohli, Sanjeev Kohli and Sandeep Kohli. Sanjay Kohli died unmarried on 12.2.1991; the plaintiff was keeping indifferent health and was busy with other important affairs and it was thought fit to create a trust in respect of the suit property for its proper management and preservation and accordingly a trust was created by them on 22.1.1966. The main object of the Trust was to maintain the aforesaid three children with the income of the said property and to engage them in some vocation for earning their livelihood; at the time of creation of the trust sons of the plain tiffs were minor and the father of the plaintiff Shri Ram Nath Kohli was alive who has since died.

3. Defendants 3 and 4, the surviving sons of the plaintiff and are beneficiaries of the trust; the plaintiff claims to be better off and free from his preoccupations, thus fully capable of looking after the property himself. Defendants 3 and 4 being surviving sons/beneficiaries, have also grown up and well settled in life. Defendants 1 and 2, who are the trustees have grown old and on account of their preoccupation are not willing to manage the trust; the trust for all practical purposes stands extinguished and the defendants 1 and 2 are not interested in administering the same.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 have filed the written statement submitting therein that they do not wish to continue as the trustees on account of their old age and even otherwise the object of the trust has been fully achieved. Defendants 3 and 4 have also filed their separate written statement admitting the claim in the suit.

5. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on two decisions of this court in Amrit Lal Kohli Vs. Harbans Lal (Suit No. 383/98) decided on 24th February, 1998 and in Amrit Lal Kohli Vs. Shri Harbans Lal Kohli & Ors (Suit No. 382/98) decided on 6th February, 1998, the latter being in respect of 3/5th share of the same property.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs, who has taken me through the record. Learned counsel argued that the suit is liable to be decreed on admission.

7. In view of the pleadings of the parties it is evident that the plaintiff had created the trust for the benefit of their minor sons. One of the sons has since expired and the others have attained majority and are well settled. The beneficiaries as well as the trustees have pleaded that the purpose of this trust has been fulfillled. Thus, there is nothing surviving in the suit for adjudication between the parties. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to judgment on admission.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the suit is decreed and it is hereby declared that the trust created by the plaintiff vide registered trust deed dated 22nd January, 1966 stands extinguished and the trustees defendants No.1 and 2 are discharged from the office of the trustees.

No order as to costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.174 seconds.