Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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