Trust Act, 1882


Trust Act (I of 1882)

Ss. 3 & 11—Where Bank to refund excess amount as sufficient
“conveyance in trust”.

If the money was transferred to the Bank with the obligation annexed
that it would refund any excess amount found due as a result of the settlement
of the exchange issue later, there would be a sufficient “conveyance in trust”
as by definition a “trust” is “an obligation annexed to the ownership of
property and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner,
or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and
the owner” vide section 3 of Trust Act, 1882. In the alternative, if the
ownership of the money did not pass to the Bank but remained with the plaintiff
then it was a case of a deposit by the plaintiff with the Bank, subject to the
express condition that a part of it would be paid back to him and a pars appropriated
by the Bank, when the disputed question of the rate of exchange was resolved.
In these circumstances too the bar of limitation could not be successfully
pleaded against the claim.

S. M. Hanif Ltd. Vs. The Central Bank of India Ltd. (1962)14 DLR (SC)


Secs. 73. 74—Provisions of the section
explained—S. 73 deals with appointment of new trustee and refers to appointment
by court.

Chera Dandi Mela Vs. Md. Yusuf Ali (1978)30 DLR (SC) 310


S. 90—Mortgagee’s purchase of the land in
auction sale for arrears of rent ensures to the benefit of the mortgagors.

Auction-purchase of the suit land for arrears of rent by defendant No.
4(a mortgagee) in view of the provision of section 90 of the Trust Act will
ensure to the benefit of the mortgagors and their heirs and

Afser Molla Vs. Abdul Aziz (1977)29 DLR 416.


—Purchase will ensure to the benefit of.

Where the usufructuary mortgagee takes upon himself the burden of paying
off rent of the property under mortgage and makes the stipulation that if for
any default in payment of rent, the mortgaged property is lost on account of
sale for arrears of rent and purchased by the mortgagee or his successor-in
interest, that purchase will ensure to the benefit of the mortgagor, specially
where the purchase place in relation to
a decree for arrears of rent for the period under mortgage.

Safayat Ali Shah Vs. Annada Pro. Ray (1955)7 DLR 222.


—In order that section 90 of the Trust Act, is attracted the co-sharer
auction-purchaser must not only be a co-sharer, but must also be guilty of some
kind of sharp practice in the transaction in question.

Shefalika Debi Vs. Belaran Debi & ors. (1981) 33 DLR 424.


Trust Act, 1882


Trust Act, 1882


20B, 20F

Trust Act has provided for certain restrictions on the investment of trust
money. The Societies Registration Act contains no limitation on investment to
be made by a society. A society cannot be construed as a trust, and the
provisions of the Trust Act have no manner of application in the functioning of
a society. Therefore, the embargo in the Trust Act has no manner of application
in the case of any society registered under the Societies Registration Act.
(Per Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury, CJ)

Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others, 22 BLD (AD) 41.



provides that whenever any vacancy or disqualification in respect of a trustee
occurs and it is found impracticable to appoint a new trustee under section 73
of the Trusts Act, the beneficiary may apply to the .principal Civil Court of
original jurisdiction for the appointment of a trustee or a new trustee.

scope of section 74 of the Trusts Act is limited only to cases where the trust
is an undisputed and executable one. In the instant case, the creation,
existence, validity and executability of the trust itself is being disputed,
the trial court was correct in holding that if the Miscellaneous Case under
section 74 of the Trusts Act is proceeded with, conflicting decisions may arise
leading to serious complications. The Miscellaneous case was rightly stayed
till the disposal of the Partition Suit.

Hamidul Huq Vs. Mrs. Nafisa Chowdhury and others, 15 BLD (AD) 79.



the property is not found abandoned under the law, the possession of the
Government is that of a trustee and transfer by the Government will be in
violation of section 94 of the Trust Act.

Chairman, Sena Petitioner Vs. Haji Sufi Fazal Ahmed, 17 BLD (HCD) 584.

40 DLR(AD)122; 46 DLR(AD)192— Cited.