Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

High Court of Karnataka Holds Compromise Decree Requires Recall in Trust Property Sale Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Karnataka, in a significant judgment, has allowed a review petition challenging a compromise decree related to the sale of trust property. The court observed that any transfer of trust property should align with the trust’s interest, benefit, and protection.

Legal Point of Judgement: The primary legal issue revolved around the maintainability of a review petition against a compromise decree involving the sale of trust property and whether such a transfer was in the trust’s interest.

Facts and Issues: The petitioners, who are direct descendants and interested parties in the ‘People Charity Fund Trust’, challenged the sale of trust property under a compromise decree. They argued that the trustees acted against the trust’s objectives and compromised its interests. The key issue was whether the compromise decree was lawful and in the trust’s interest.

Court’s Assessment:

Maintainability of Review Petition: The court held that under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, any aggrieved person can file a review petition. The petitioners, being direct descendants and beneficiaries, had a valid interest in the trust.

Power to Sell Trust Property: The court stressed that trustees should act in the trust’s interest. The sale of trust property by private negotiation, without verifying or disclosing market value, was deemed not in the trust’s interest.

Issue of Limitation: The court observed that the appellate court cannot pass a compromise decree without addressing the issue of limitation. It was noted that if a claim is dismissed as barred by limitation, it affects the court’s jurisdiction.

Lawfulness of Compromise: The court found the compromise decree questionable, as it seemed not to be in the trust’s interest. The fact that the trustees had already identified buyers for the remaining property was not disclosed to the court at the time of the compromise.

Decision: The court allowed the review petition, recalling the judgment dated February 15, 2023, passed in RFA No.1294/2022. The RFA No.1294/2022 was restored to file for further proceedings.

Date of Decision: 7th February 2024

Smt. Kausalya Thirupuvanam VS K Raghava Reddy

Latest Legal News