Smt C. Sucharitha, V. Union of India

WP/1738/2020

AI Insights

The case involves a dispute within the 'CVS Krishna Theja Charities' Trust, originally established by Sri CVS Krishna Theja. The Trust underwent several modifications through a Deed of Trust and a Codicil, which were legally recognized and registered. The primary conflict arose between the petitioner, who is the Managing Trustee and also the wife of the Trust's author, and the other trustees, leading to operational disruptions in the Trust's educational institutions. The bank accounts of the Trust were affected due to a resolution passed by the Trustees, which led to the petitioner being barred from operating these accounts. The court's decision focused on procedural aspects and the jurisdictional limits of Article 226 of the Constitution, avoiding a deep dive into the factual disputes presented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735334 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Bank account operation; Deed of Trust; Managing Trustee; Codicil; Trust Dispute

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.1738 of 2020 & 24208 OF 2020 COMMON ORDER: The Trust known as ‘CVS Krishna Theja Charities’ was set up by one Sri CVS Krishna Theja by way of a ‘Deed of Trust’, dated 08.10.1997. This Deed of Trust was subsequently cancelled and a fresh Deed of Trust, dated 20.08.2004 was executed. Thereafter, a Codicil to the Deed of Trust, dated 01.02.2017 was attached to the Deed of Trust after obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Income Tax by proceedings, dated 20.01.2017. 2. Under the Deed of Trust, the author and the Managing Trustee are for life. It appears that the petitioner in W.P.No.1738 of 2020 was appointed as the Managing Trustee. Incidentally, she is also the wife of the author of the Trust. 3. Due to differences between the husband and the wife, disputes arose and these disputes are now affecting the operations of the 4th respondent Trust, which is running various educational institutions. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.1738 of 2020 was operating the bank accounts of the 4th respondent Trust. However, the 2nd and 3rd respondent bank stopped the petitioner from operating these accounts on the ground that they had received communication from the 4th respondent that a resolution had been passed by the Trustees, restraining the petitioner from acting as Managing Trustee. 5. Aggrieved by the said communication, dated 05.11.2019, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 6. Simultaneously, the 4th respondent Trust has filed W.P.No.24208 of 2020 on the ground that the respondent bank, by letter, dated 07.07.2020, was not allowing the operations of the bank 2 accounts of the Trust on the ground that W.P.No.1738 of 2020 is pending and the result of the said Writ petition should be awaited. 7. In W.P.No.1738 of 2020, the contention of the petitioner is that even though she is the Managing Trustee of the 4th respondent Trust, she is not being allowed to operate the bank accounts. This contention is disputed by the 4th respondent Trust which contends that the petitioner has been removed as Managing Trustee and in any event, the author of the Trust is entitled to operate the bank accounts in view of the Codicil to the Deed of Trust, dated 01.02.2017. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner has not bothered to dispute or challenge the proceedings of the Trust, wherein a resolution was passed to stop the petitioner from carrying on as the Managing Trustee of the Trust. 9. These all are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court. The question whether the resolutions said to have been passed by the Trustees are correct or not, the question whether the petitioner was aware of these facts or not, the question whether such resolutions are binding or not etc., are all questions which this Court, while exercising it’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not go into. 10. In the said circumstances, W.P.No.1738 of 2020 is dismissed. 11. At this stage, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar seeks leave to withdraw the W.P.No.24208 of 2020 with liberty to avail all appropriate remedies. The petitioner in W.P.No.24208 of 2020 is permitted to withdraw the petition, leaving it open to avail such remedies as are available to the petitioner therein. 3 12. With these observations, Writ Petition No.1738 of 2020 is dismissed and Writ Petition No.24208 of 2020 is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petitions. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petitions, shall also stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date: 03.02.2021 MP "