Vesting of Property in Trusts

Saji Koduvath.

Introduction

English Law asserts ‘duel ownership’ upon a trust property; ie., the legal or trust ownership[1] vested with the trustee; and real, equitable or beneficial ownership, with the beneficiaries or the cestui que trust.

Merely because the property is vested in the trustee as the legal owner, he is not the full owner of the property in the real sense of the term; because, the beneficial interest (is, ‘proprietary interest’ or interest pertaining to owner) and equitable ownership are carved out in the property. Similarly, the ‘real’ or beneficial ownership with the beneficiary is not the ‘proprietary interest’ pertaining to an owner; but, it is interest pertaining to beneficiaries.

No ‘Equitable Ownership’ With Beneficiaries under Indian Law

But, Indian Law does not recognize legal and equitable estates. [2] There is no ‘equitable/beneficial ownership’ with the beneficiaries as per the Common Law of trust predicated by courts in India and under the Indian Trusts Act, in both public and private trusts. Beneficiaries have, under Indian Law, only beneficial[3] interest.[4] It is not the interest that pertains to (true) owner.

Inasmuch as idols, and trusts like Mutts, are considered as juristic persons by virtue of legal fiction imposed by Common Law of India, exploration of actual vesting of ownership of trust property has much significance. 

Property Vests in the ‘Legal Ownership’ of the Trustees

Salmond on Jurisprudence[5]  reads as under:

• “A trustee is the legal owner of the property, the actual owner thereof having lost title thereto by the creation of a trust.”

As per the definition of trust in the Indian Trusts Act, ‘a trust is (i) an obligation annexed to the ownership of property and (ii) arising out of a confidence accepted by the owner’.  Because the obligation upon the trustee is to administer the trust property, and the obligation is ‘annexed to the ownership of property’, the administration by the trustee is, is as its (legal) owner. When the ‘beneficial interest or interest’ is defined, it is explained that the ‘beneficial interest’ or ‘interest’ of the beneficiary is his right against the trustee ‘as owner of the trust property’.

Because the obligation upon the trustee is to administer the trust property, and the obligation is ‘annexed to the ownership of property’, the administration by the trustee is, is as its (legal) owner.

Inasmuch as the vesting of ownership of trust property with the trustee is under an obligation to manage it for the benefit of the beneficiaries, the trust property vests in the ‘legal ownership’ of the trustees;[6] and not in their absolute or actual ownership, as observed in Kansara  Abdulrehman  Sadruddin Vs. Trustees of the Maniar  Jamat Ahmedabad.[7]. The actual owner loses his title thereto by the creation of a trust[8].  But, in case of a property of legal person, such as temple, Math, etc., the legal ownership thereof vests with the legal person.[9]

The ingredients of trust stated in the former part of Section 6 (ie. intention, purpose, beneficiary and property), are the legal requirements for endowments also. The differentiating particularity of trust is the ‘transfer of the trust-property to the trustee’. From Sections 10 and 75 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 it is clear that the (legal) ‘ownership’ of trust property vests with the trustee. 

Sec. 10 reads as under:

• 10. ….. Disclaimer of trust.—Instead of accepting a trust, the intended trustee may, within a reasonable period, disclaim it, and such disclaimer shall prevent the trust property from vesting in him. A disclaimer by one of two or more co-trustees vests the trust property in the other or others and makes him or them sole trustee or trustees from the date of the creation of the trust.

Sec. 75 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 reads:

• 75. Vesting of trust property in new trustees.—Whenever any new trustee is appointed under section 73 or section 74, all the trust property for the time being vested in the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee, or in the legal representative of any trustee, shall become vested in such new trustee, either solely or jointly with the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee, as the case may require.

Vesting of Property Held by Associations and Public Trusts

In law, vesting of property is of two kinds.

• Vesting for management 
• Vesting of ownership. 

Vesting for management:

Under Common-Law of trusts in India, properties of associations of people and public trust properties vest for management with the administrators known as managers, trustees, governing bodies, directors, Shebaits, Dharmakarthas, etc. The persons in management have a fiduciary duty to perform the obligations they had undertaken. 

Vesting of Ownership:

There may be no difficulty, in case of a legal entity, such as an idol or a mutt, to determine the person in whom the legal ownership of property vests. But, even in such cases, a further question may arise  – inasmuch as the vesting of property in a legal person is only in an ‘ideal sense’ – in whom the actual or ultimate ownership vests.

General Propositions as to Vesting of Trust Property

‘Ultimate Vesting’: No Practical Importance in Public Trust

The enquiry as to actual or ultimate vesting of ownership of a public trust property (beyond the vesting of the legal ownership) may be commented upon as superfluous, if not redundant, inasmuch as it is a basic principle that ‘once a trust is always trust’[10]; and therefore, the law does not envisage such an enquiry. 

When dedication of property is for the benefit of public, either for religious purposes or for other matters, it is irrevocable. If the endowment created by the dedication is a legal person the dedicated property vests in such person.  If the same is not a legal person, the terms of dedication (as revealed from the deed, if any, or other evidence) determine the person or body of persons in whom/which such property ultimately vest in.

In most cases of public trusts, the ‘ultimate vesting’ may not be a matter of practical importance; because, the endowment will be permanent and indivisible; and court takes cognizance, when practical difficulties come to carry-on the object of the trust, by applying cy-pres doctrine or by invoking its statutory/inherent jurisdiction.

It is held in Syed Mohammad Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd Hanifa[11]  that once a Kabarstan has been held to be a public graveyard then it vests in the public and constitutes a wakf and it cannot be divested by nonuser but will always continue to be so whether it is used or not.

But, the nature of vesting of actual ownership of property held by Associations of persons and trusts may be risen up for consideration, while a dissention or valid claim for separation arises or if there could be a lawful winding-up or dissolution. Where the property continues to be that of the Society, change in office bearers who control of management of the Society cannot amount to creation of third party interest in or transfer of property of Society. The same does not amount to creation of any rights in the property of Society in favour of changed management inasmuch as the assets continue to be enjoyed by the Society and the new management does not acquire any personal interest in the assets.

Vesting is Subject to Basic Principles of Foundation

The vesting of trust property is always subject to the basic principles of foundation laid down by the author/founder of the trust. In proper cases, courts enquire, on the basis of evidence, what were the true ‘basic principles of foundation’. The nature of vesting of actual ownership, and the basic principles of its foundation (beyond legal ownership which vests in the trustees; or beyond the ‘ideal ownership’ vest in a legal person), differs according to the nature of the trust.

We can take cue from the following observations of Dr. BK Mukherjea, J., on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts:[12]

• “The idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognized by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests.”[13]

It is further explained in by   Dr. Mukherjea, J. as under:

• “… ‘The dedication to deity’, said Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhupati Vs.  Ramlal, ILR 37 Cal. 128, ‘is nothing but a compendious expression of the pious purpose for which the dedication is designed’. It is not only a compendious expression but a material embodiment of the pious purpose and though there is difficulty in holding that property can reside in the aim or purpose itself, it would be quite consistent with sound principles of Jurisprudence to say that a material object which represents or symbolises a particular purpose can be given the status of a legal person, and regarded as owner of the property which is dedicated to it”.[14]

Vesting of Actual Ownership of Property of an Association

Ownership of property of a club vests in its members. Salmond on Jurisprudence reads as under:[15]

• “The Club property is the joint property of the members, though in fact, it is often held by trustees on behalf of the members.”

Halsbury’s Law of England lays down:[16]

• “Unincorporated members’ clubs. – An unincorporated members’ club is a society of persons each of whom contributes to the funds out of which the expenses of conducting the society are paid. ……. Subject to any rule to the contrary, the property and funds of the club belong to the members of the time being jointly in equal shares. “

A society is the compendium of its members and its property is the ‘joint property’ held by the members as ‘joint tenants’ (as opposed to ‘tenants in common’, till a decision is taken for dissolution).

If objectives of foundation of a society envisioned permanency; or preservation of its property is mandated for the benefit of its future members also (and therefore encumbered with obligations attached to ‘trust’), the members of a particular time cannot deal with the property disregarding its objectives of foundation.

Gift on Trust for Future and Existing Members: Cannot Appropriate

Underhill, in his treatise ‘Law of Trusts and Trustees’, explained it thus:

• “However, the crucial difference surely is that no absolutely entitled members exist if the gift is on trust for future and existing members, always being for the members of the association for the time being. The members for the time being cannot under the association rules appropriate trust property for themselves for there would then be no property held on trust as intended by the testator for those persons who some years later happened to be the members of the association for the time being.” [17]

Tudor on Charities reads:

• “A gift to a parish church is construed to be a gift to the parson and parishioners of that parish and their successors forever.”[18]

Vesting of Ownership of Trust/Association Property

The following propositions can be presented as to the vesting of ownership of the trust-property and the property held by an association.

1. In most cases of public trusts, the ‘ultimate vesting’ may not be a matter of practical importance; because, the endowment will be permanent and indivisible; and court takes cognizance, when practical difficulties come to carry on the object of the trust, by applying cy pres doctrine or by invoking its statutory/inherent jurisdiction.
2. The terms of dedication (as revealed from the deed of dedication, if any, or on other substantial evidence) determine the person or body of persons in whom/which such property ultimately vest in.
3. If the ownership of the property of a trust vests in a legal person, such vesting is permanent (thereby it cannot be put to an end), and is subject to the purpose envisaged by the founder, as revealed from the document of foundation or byelaws, if any.
4. If the property is that of an association and the members thereof are ascertainable (as in the case of a society) the actual ownership of the property will be presumed to be vested with those members (from time-to-time), only as joint owners (contra-distinct to ownership under tenants-in-common).
5. If the property is one dedicated to public so as to form a public trust and beneficiaries are unascertainable (as in the case of a political party or a Church) the property ultimately vests with the entire members (of such Association or Church), from time to time, permanently (thereby it cannot be put to an end), subject to its objectives, as revealed from the document of foundation or byelaws, if any.
6. If the subject matter of a trust is one partially dedicated to public at large or a section of public (as in the case of a waiting shed or a public well)by a known person and administered and maintained by himself or another person, the property  will continue to vest with the owner.
7. If the subject matter of the trust is dedicated to public at large or a section of public, the title of such subject matter stands separated from the owner and vests in public or a section of public who are the beneficiaries, subject to the objectives of foundation, as established by evidence or as revealed from the deed of foundation or byelaws, if any.
8. If the property is one acquired by a branch of a larger body, or a parish of a Church, for the benefit of all persons/members of the larger body, the entire members of the larger body, from time to time, will be presumed to be the owners, subject to the byelaws of the association and the objectives of the trust impressed upon the property. 

Vesting of Property in Various Kinds of Associations and Trusts

Club, Society, Firm and Company

No.	Nature of Association.	Vesting of Management and Legal Ownership.	Vesting  of actual/ ultimate ownership	Whether perma-nent or can it be put an end to
1	Club	Trustees or Gov. Body, as per  Byelaws	Members, subject to the byelaws and objectives of foundation.	Presumed to be not permanent.[19]
2	Unregistred. Society/ Association	-do-	-do-	Presumed to be permanent.
3	Registered Society	-do-	-do-	Permanent.  SR Act governs dissolution.
4	Firm	Partners	Partners	Contract/partnership deed governs
5	Trading Company	Board of Directors	Company	Permanent. Co. Act governs winding up.
6	Charitable or Non-trading company	-do-	-do-	-do-

Trusts/Religious-Endowments:

7	Public Trust– English Law[20]	Trustees	Legal ownership in Trustees; beneficial ownership in Beneficiaries.	Permanent
8	Public Trust-Indian (common) Law	Trustees	Beneficiaries have only beneficial interest; and, no beneficial ownership. Theoretically, properties vest in public or section who are beneficiaries, subject to the objectives of foundation, as established by evidence or as revealed from the deed of founda-tion or byelaws, if any.	Permanent
9	Public School, Public Library, etc.	Trustees (called by different names).	-do-	Permanent.
10	Private religious or charitable trusts	Management on Trustees (called by different names). If the trust/ institution/ endowment is a legal person upon which legal ownership can be vested, legal ownership will be vested upon it.	Properties vest in trust/ institution/endowment itself.  If it cannot be – for it is not a legal person – property vests in such persons as established by evidence or the deed of foundation or byelaws.  Beneficiaries have no beneficial ownership.	Presumed to be permanent.
11	Mosque, Church, Gurudwara, etc.	Management on Trustees (by different names).  If the trust/ institution/ endowment is a legal person upon which legal ownership can be vested, legal ownership will be vested upon it.	In trust/institution or endowment itself.  If it cannot be – for it is not a legal person – section of public who are beneficiaries, subject to the objectives of foundation, as established by evidence or as revealed from the deed of foundation or bylaws, if any.	Permanent
12	Temple (Public)	Management on Shebaits/ Darmkarta/ Ooralen. Since Idol/deity is a legal person upon which legal ownership can be vested, legal ownership vests upon it.	Idol/deity	do-
13	Temple (private)	-do-	-do-	-do-
14	Mutt	Management on Madathipathi. Since Mutt is a legal person upon which legal ownership can be vested, legal ownership vests upon it.	Mutt	-do-
15	Private Trust (Coming under the Trusts Act	Trustees	Terms/ Deed of Trust govern.	Trusts Act governs Extinction and Revocation.[21]

Government School, University, etc.

16

University, Govt. Hospital, Govt. College, etc.

Administrators as provided in the statute concerned

In the institution itself, if not expressly stated to be in the Government.

Presumed to be permanent. (Permanent until decided to close by the Government.)

---

[1]      Salmond on Jurisprudence: 12^th  Edition, page 256.

[2]      See: ChhatraKumari Devi Vs. Mohan Bikram Shah: AIR 1931 PC 196.

[3]      See: M. R. Goda  Rao Sahib Vs.  State of Madras: AIR 1966 SC 653; Sree Siddhi Budhi  Vinayakagar  Sree  Sundareswarar  Vs. S V Marimuthu:  AIR 1963 Mad 369.

[4]      Chhatra  Kumari Vs. Mohan Bikram: AIR 1931 PC 196; WO Holdsworth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh: AIR 1957 SC 887: 2001-9 SCC 471; Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kripashankar: AIR 1971 SC 2463; Bai  Dosabai Vs. Mathurdas: AIR 1980 SC 1334; Bomi  Munchershaw  Mistry Vs. Kesharwani Co Op. Hosg. So.: 1993-2 BCR 301; 1993-2 BCR 32. See also: Ramabai  GovindVs. Raghunath  Vasudevo: AIR 1952 Bom 106; Deoki  Nandan  Vs. Murlidhar:  AIR 1957 SC 133; Behari  Lal Vs. Thakur Radha  Ballabhji: AIR 1961 All 73 .

[5]      Salmond on Jurisprudence: 12^th  Edition, page 256

[6]      Kansara  Abdulrehman  Sadruddin Vs. Trustees of the Maniar  Jamat : AIR 1968 Guj 184.Narayani Amma Vs Eyo Poulose: AIR 1982 Ker 198; S R Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Papanasam Labour Union:  AIR1969 Mad 401; T C Chacko Vs. Annamma: AIR  1994 Ker 107.

[7]      AIR 1968 Guj 184.

[8]    Baba Badri Dass Vs. Dharma: AIR 1982 P&H  255

[9]      See Chapter: VESTING OF PROPERTY IN HINDU ENDOWMENTS

[10]   KS Varghese  Vs. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church: (2017) 15 SCC 333

[11]  AIR  1976  SC 1569.

[12]    Page 38.

[13]    Quoted in Yogendra  Nath  Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: AIR 1969 SC 1089.

[14]    Quoted in Yogendra  Nath  Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: AIR 1969 SC 1089; M Siddiq Vs. Mahanth Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case): (2019)  SCC  OnLine SC 1440

[15]    12^th Edition, Page 326

[16]    IV Edition, Vol. 6, Para 205

[17]    Quoted in: Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma: AIR 1995 SC 2001.

[18] Page 208

[19]    If the objectives of foundation envisage benefit to future members also, the present members and administrators are trustees for future members.

[20]    Preferred name: Charities

[21]    It is settled that in the matter of (secular) private trusts, English principles are followed in India which lay down that if the beneficiaries are sui juris and of one mind, the trust can be put to an end or use the trust fund for any purpose (they wish): Profulla  Chorone  Requitte Vs. Satya  Chorone  Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682.

---

---

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act (on Purchase Certificate,  Plantation-Exemption & Ceiling Area) in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Production of Documents in Court: Order 11, Rule 14 CPC is not independent from Rule 12
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice for the Same Cause of Action
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION
• PRODUCTION, ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, Order Without Jurisdiction and Sham Transactions
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; When ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney is Sufficient for Registration of a Deed
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• The Law and Principles of Mandatory Injunction
• Declaration and Injunction
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse, Cannot be Placed in a Straight-Jacket & Not a Judicial Cure-all.
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Is Permission of Court Mandatory when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Contract Act and other Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Is Decree in a Representative Suit (OI R8 CPC) Enforceable Against Persons Not Eo-Nomine Parties?

Evidence Act

• EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ under Sec. 65B Evidence Act.
• OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting Witnesses
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests in Criminal Investigation
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents

Constitution

• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Why No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits)? What are the Counter Arguments?
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation Case: Supreme Court Fixed Upper Limit at 50%.
• Separation Of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature, Executive or Judiciary ?
• ‘Is Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’ Stands Tagged-on with Sabarimala Revision-Reference Matter
• Is Excommunication of Parsi Women for Marrying Outside, Unconstitutional
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• M. Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das –Pragmatic Verdict on Ayodhya Disputes
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Effect and Outcome – Never Ending Controversy
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests in Criminal Investigation
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation Of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature, Executive or Judiciary ?

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Contract Act and other Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?

Easement

• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Club/Society

• State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs
• Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
• Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
• Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs and Companies
• How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs of a Club or Society
• Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
• Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers of Societies
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies.
• Management of Societies and Clubs, And Powers of General Body and Governing Body
• Court Interference in Election Process
• Clubs and Societies, Bye Laws Fundamental
• Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
• Societies and Branches
• Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
• Clubs and Societies: General Features

Trusts/Religion

• Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
• Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
• Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions
• Alienation of Public Trust Property
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Philosophy of Idol Worship
• Vesting of Property in Public Trusts: in Nutshell
• Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
• Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
• Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Public & Private Trusts in India.
• What is Trust in Indian Law?
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Vesting of Property in Trusts
• Indian Law of Trusts Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• M. Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das –Pragmatic Verdict on Ayodhya Disputes
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Is Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’ Stands Tagged-on with Sabarimala Revision-Reference Matter
• Is Excommunication of Parsi Women for Marrying Outside, Unconstitutional.
• Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, Variation etc. of Public Trusts
• Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
• State & Court – Protectors of All Charities