LAWS(DLH)-2000-9-7

AMRIT LAL KOHLI Vs. HARBANS LAL KOHLI

Decided On September 18, 2000
AMRIT LAL KOHLI Appellant
V/S
HARBANS LAL KOHLI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in this suit are seeking a decree of declaration that the trust deed dated 22nd January, 1966 in respect of their 2/5th share in plot no.32, Block - E measuring 250 sq. yds situated at New Delhi South Extension, Part-ll, New Delhi (for short the suit property) has extinguished.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration alleging therein that on 13th January, 1965 by a registered sale deed the plaintiffs purchased the suit property and thereafter raised construction on it with their own funds; the ground floor was let out to the State Bank of India while part of it is in occupation of the defendants 3 and 4; plaintiffs had three sons namely, Sanjay Kohli, Sanjeev Kohli and Sandeep Kohli. Sanjay Kohli died unmarried on 12.2.1991; the plaintiff was keeping indifferent health and was busy with other important affairs and it was thought fit to create a trust in respect of the suit property for its proper management and preservation and accordingly a trust was created by them on 22.1.1966. The main object of the Trust was to maintain the aforesaid three children with the income of the said property and to engage them in some vocation for earning their livelihood; at the time of creation of the trast sons of the plaintiffs were minor and the father of the plaintiff Shri Ram Nath Kohli was alive who has since died.

(3.) Defendants 3 and 4, the surviving sons of the plaintiff and are beneficiaries of the trust; the plaintiff claims to be better off and free from his preoccupations, thus fully capable of looking after the property himself. Defendants 3 and 4 being surviving sons/beneficiaries, have also grown up and well-settled in life. Defendants 1 and 2, who are the trustees have grown old and on account of their preoccupation are not willing to manage the trust; the trust for all practical purposes stands extinguished and the defendants 1 and 2 are not interested in administering the same.