Absence Of Formal Trust Deed Not Decisive; Public Trust Can Be Inferred From Nature Of Beneficiaries And Surrounding Circumstances: Kerala High Court

The Court observed that where the beneficiaries comprise the general public or an unascertained and fluctuating section thereof, the absence of a formal trust instrument is not decisive in determining the existence of a public trust.

The Court was hearing a first appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs had sought relief relating to the administration of properties alleged to constitute a constructive public religious and charitable trust, including removal of trustees, rendition of accounts and framing of a scheme for proper administration of the trust.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., while examining whether a constructive public religious and charitable trust could be inferred from the facts of the case, observed: "Even if it is conceded that there is no express declaration of trust or formal deed of dedication creating a public trust, it is well settled that the absence of an express trust is not decisive. A trust can be said to be created for a public purpose when the beneficiaries constitute either the general public or an unascertained and fluctuating section thereof, as distinguished from a determinate body of specified individuals."

Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate V.V. Asokan appeared for the contesting respondents.

Background

The suit concerned properties alleged to have been acquired and utilised for missionary, religious and charitable activities associated with a Christian religious denomination. The plaintiffs contended that although the properties were held in the name of a missionary who had acquired them during the course of his religious activities, they were, in fact, dedicated to religious and charitable purposes and had acquired the character of a public trust from their inception.

According to the plaintiffs, the properties were subsequently transferred between organisations connected with missionary and Gospel activities. It was alleged that the properties continued to be used for prayer halls, schools, orphanages, burial grounds, and other charitable institutions, and that the persons managing the properties had committed acts of mismanagement and breach of trust. Reliefs under Section 92 CPC were therefore sought.

The defendants denied the existence of any express or constructive trust and contended that the properties were privately acquired and validly transferred as absolute properties. It was argued that no deed creating a trust existed and that the mere use of properties for charitable or religious purposes could not convert private ownership into a public trust.

The Trial Court accepted the defendants' contentions and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the existence of a public religious or charitable trust. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal.

Court's Observations

The Court began by examining the scope of Section 92 CPC and reiterated that a suit under the provision necessarily presupposes the existence of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. The Court observed that although the existence of such a trust is foundational to the maintainability of a suit under Section 92 CPC, a formal deed of trust is not an indispensable requirement.

The Bench observed: "The existence of such a trust, whether express or constructive, is therefore the foundational requirement for the maintainability of the suit. At the same time, it is now well settled that an express deed of dedication or formal declaration of trust is not a sine qua non for invoking Section 92 CPC and that a public trust may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, conduct of parties, long course of user and other circumstances."

The Court then undertook an extensive survey of precedents dealing with public trusts, including Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop (1940), Gurunatharudhaswami Guru Shidharudhaswami v. Bhimappa Gangadharappa Divate (1948), The Bihar State Board Religious Trust v. Biseshwar Das (1971), Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa v. Charity Commissioner (1976), Kuldip Chand v. Advocate-General, Himachal Pradesh (2003) and Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra (2026). The Court noted that these authorities consistently recognise that the existence of a public trust may be inferred from the origin of the institution, the intention behind the acquisition of property, the nature of beneficiaries, the public user and the manner in which the property and its income are applied.

After analysing the authorities, the Court observed: "From the above exposition of law evolved through precedents, it is clear that even if there is no trust created expressly through declaration or deed, inference of one can be made through a set of tests."

The Court then examined the documents and surrounding circumstances relied upon by the plaintiffs. It noted that the transfer documents referred to the utilisation of the properties for "Gospel work" and that subsequent transfers occurred between institutions connected with missionary and religious activities. The Court found that these circumstances were relevant in assessing whether the properties were intended to serve public religious and charitable objectives.

Applying the principles formulated by the Supreme Court in Operation Asha (2026), the Court considered the manner in which the properties had devolved, the purpose recitals contained in the transfer documents, the institutional character of the transferees and the continued use of the properties for religious and charitable purposes. The Court found that these factors pointed towards dedication of the properties for public religious and charitable objects rather than purely private ownership.

The Court further observed: "The cumulative effect of these circumstances is clearly indicative of a relinquishment of beneficial ownership and a vesting of the properties in institutions charged with carrying out religious and charitable objects."

Turning to the nature of the beneficiaries, the Court found that the institutions functioning on the properties had catered to worshippers, students, orphans, widows and other beneficiaries associated with the religious and charitable activities conducted there. These beneficiaries did not constitute a closed or determinate group.

The Court observed: "The beneficiaries are therefore not the members of a single family nor a determinate body of specifically identified persons. They constitute a fluctuating and unascertained body of persons connected with the religious and charitable activities of the Assembly. Such long-standing public participation and user constitute a strong circumstance pointing towards the public character of the trust."

The Court also examined the application of income and benefits arising from the properties. It found no material indicating personal appropriation of the properties or their income. Instead, the materials suggested that the properties and their benefits continued to be utilised for educational, religious and charitable institutions associated with the denomination.

The Bench observed: "The long-standing continuation of such activities is inconsistent with the notion that the properties were treated as purely private assets. Rather, it supports the inference that the properties and their income were being utilised for the benefit of the religious and charitable institutions associated with the Brethren Assembly and the beneficiaries thereof."

Having evaluated the pleadings, documentary evidence, historical circumstances, public user, nature of beneficiaries and charitable activities carried on over several decades, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had successfully established sufficient material to infer the existence of a constructive public religious and charitable trust.

The Court observed: "Having regard to the cumulative effect of the pleadings, documentary materials, historical circumstances, public user, nature of beneficiaries and long-standing charitable and religious activities conducted in the properties, I am of the firm view that the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing sufficient materials from which the existence of a constructive public religious and charitable trust can reasonably be inferred."

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Kerala High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment and declared that the suit properties were impressed with the character of a constructive public religious and charitable trust. Since the Trial Court had decided only the issue relating to the existence of the trust and had not adjudicated the remaining issues concerning administration of the trust, removal of trustees, rendition of accounts and settlement of a scheme, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of those issues in accordance with law.

Cause Title: C.C. Moses & Ors. v. Steward Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:40643)

Appearances

Appellants: Senior Advocate Sri. T.Krishnanunni, Advocate R. Ramadas

Respondents: K.I. Mayankutty Mather (Senior Advocate), Uthara Asokan, V.V. Asokan (Senior Advocate), S. Amina, K. Mohanakannan, T. Gopalakrishnan, Nishin George Vijayababu and P. Paulochan Antony

Click here to read/download Judgment