Case: Princ.Secr.,Govt.Of Karnataka  Vs. Ragini Narayan

which requires that any alteration of the deed or amendment therein would require concurrence of Donor Trustee and that of the State Government.16. 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 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 disputed amendment of 1994. One of such documents (dated13.8.1995) is Annexure A-7 filed by the Respondent No.2 with the additional documents, which is copy of the ‘Deed of Appointment’ of the Government of Karnataka as successor Donor Trustee of executant B.S. Narayan. In our opinion, the appellants cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. On one hand they rely on this document to nominate M.R. Srinivasa Murthy, and appoint 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 has exercised the powers in nominating the Donor Trustee. Para 2 of Annexure A-7 i.e. ‘Deed of Appointment’ dated 13.08.1995 executed by B.S. Narayan reads as under:“…….WHEREAS the above executant is the Donor Trustee of a Registered Educational Trust, created under document dated 02.12.1957 and registered as Document No.2944/57-58 in Book I, Volume 48, pages 10 to 35, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore City South, and WHEREAS the above document created the B.M.S. Educational Trust, which document was subsequently amended once by registered document No. 498/81-82 dated 25.06.1981 and further amended by a second document dated 30.01.1995 and registered as document No.531/94-95, after following the formalities required in regard to amendment, which included the approval of the Government of the State of Karnataka and ……….”(emphasis supplied)17. Another important document which throws light on this point is Annexure P-7 dated 7.11.1995 which is copy of the letter issued by the Government of Karnataka to the Member Secretary of B.M.S. Trust, Bangalore appointing M.R. Srinivasa Murthy, IAS, as Donor Trustee. Said document is reproduced below:No.ED108TEC95“GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKAKarnataka Government Secretariat,Sachivalaya-II, Bangalore,Dated: November 07, 1995From:The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka,Education Department, Bangalore.ToThe Member Secretary,B.M. Srinivasaiah Educational Trust,Bangalore.SirSub: Acceptance of appointment as a Donor Trustee by the Government of Karnataka for B.M. Srinivasaiah Educational Trust.Ref: 1. Letter from Sri Y. Ramachandra, Chairman of the Trust, dtd.15.09.19952. Deed of Appointment dtd. 13.08.95 executed by the late Donor Trustee Sri B.S. Narayan.….With reference to the above mentioned Communication/documents, the Government of Karnataka has accepted the nomination as the Donor-Trustee of B.M. Srinivasaiah Educational Trust and is assuming the role of Donor-Trustee with immediate effect. Sri M.R. Sreenivasa Murthy, IAS, is hereby appointed to function as Donor-Trustee on behalf of the Government of Karnataka with immediate effect.Please extend all co-operation to him and assist him in the discharge of his functions.Yours faithfully,Sd/-(U.P. SHARMA)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTEDUCATION DEPARTMENT.”18. From the above mentioned 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 had not approved the Resolution dated 10.12.1994 on the basis of which Deed of Amendment was registered on 30.01.1995. That being so, now we have to examine whether it is the plaintiff who was validly nominated Donor Trustee or the State Government? From the para (IV)(i) of the original Trust Deed dated 02.12.1957, it is clear that B.S. Narayan was to continue as Donor Trustee during his life time whereafter he was to be succeeded by his lineal descendant, and if the mode of succession fails then, power of the appointment of the Trust Deed was to vest with the State Government. Amendment of 1978 as shown in the chart quoted earlier, makes it clear that name of Minnie Narayan was added in para (IV)(i) as nominee to succeed from B.S. Narayan, and thereafter senior most of the lineal descendant, and if the mode of succession fail, the powers were to be exercised by the State Government. It appears that after Minnie Narayan was divorced by B.S. Narayan, and he (B.S. Narayan) got married to Ragini Narayan (plaintiff) whereafter further amendment was proposed and passed through Resolution dated 10.12.1994 (as mentioned in amended deed registered on 30.01.1995) and by this amendment i.e. of 1994 name of Minnie Narayan was deleted, and it was mentioned that after the life time of B.S. Narayan, his senior most lineal 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.19. There is concurrent finding of fact of the courts below that Ragini Narayan was the wife of B.S. Narayan Donor Trustee, at the time of his death, as such it cannot be said that mode of succession mentioned in para (IV)(i) failed. Whether it is amendment of 1978 or 1995 the expression "or his wife” is there. In our opinion 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 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, we have already held that by virtue of Ex.A-7 dated 13.8.1995, the recital contained therein and in view of the letter of the State Government dated 7.11.1995 the consent of the State Government to the amendment of 1994 can be readily inferred. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, we clarify that any nominee appointed by the State Government as Trustee will be entitled to function as ordinary trustee in the Council of Trustees as provided in the Trust Deed but not as the Donor Trustee till the succession as mentioned in the Trust Deed (as amended) fails.20. For the reasons as discussed above,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]19. There is concurrent finding of fact of the courts below that Ragini Narayan was the wife of B.S. Narayan Donor Trustee, at the time of his death, as such it cannot be said that mode of succession mentioned in para (IV)(i) failed. Whether it is amendment of 1978 or 1995 the expression "or hisis there. In our opinion the words-‘or hisin the amendment of 1978 to which the appellants admittedly approved refer to wife of the Donor Trustee. Same expression is 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, we have already held that by virtue of Ex.A-7 dated 13.8.1995, the recital contained therein and in view of the letter of the State Government dated 7.11.1995 the consent of the State Government to the amendment of 1994 can be readily inferred. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, we clarify that any nominee appointed by the State Government as Trustee will be entitled to function as ordinary trustee in the Council of Trustees as provided in the Trust Deed but not as the Donor Trustee till the succession as mentioned in the Trust Deed (as amended) fails.