IN RE: UNIVERSAL MUTUAL AID AND POOR HOUSES ASSOCIATION, LIMITED, MADRAS IN LIQUIDATION, A D THOPPA NAIDU; MR C V NAGARAJA SASTRI (MANAGING OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HEREIN) Vs. LMGESAN (A CLAIMANT HEREIN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the Managing Official Liquidator in the matter of the Universal Mutual Aid and Poor Houses Association, Ltd. in liquidation for directions regarding a sum which, I am informed, amounts to Rs. 2,335 2-10 which is part of monies in a suspense account, and the application arises under these circumstances. The Company in liquidation issued to subscribers donation certificates which were accepted by the subscriber, upon the condition endorsed thereon and in the recital, the certificate bolder expressed himself as desirous of doing charity. In the memorandum of association of the company amongst its primary objects was to allocate Rs. 30 per cent, at least of the monies coming to them from the certificate-holders towards specified charities: in regard to the remaining 70 per cent, of the monies subscribed, that part was to form a fund from which benefits might from time to time be available to certificate-holders and in respect of which there is no necessity now for me to discuss. The company has received altogether a sum of approximately Rs. 10,000 and instead of allocating 30 per cent, to charity and 70 per cent, to the other objects, I have indicated, the whole was placed in what was called a suspense account and the monies paid were entered in a suspense ledger. Whenever any person desired to become a certificate- holder, he did so only upon the terms of the certificate and upon the terms of the memorandum of association, of which he would have constructive notice, and he would know that of the monies that he transmitted to the company 30 per cent, was to be allocated to charity and the company en the other hand in accepting contributions from certificate-holders accepted those contributions upon the basis that 30 per cent, was so to be allocated. From this it is to my mind clear that when a certificate-holder transmitted monies to the company, in regard to 30 per cent, of the amount so paid, a trust was created and the monies were accepted by the company, upon trust. It is in regard to such 30 per cent, that the sum I have already mentioned, Rs. 2,335-2-10, is found in the accounts of the company and the Official Liquidator requires directions.

(2.) It is contended that no trust was created and that the individual certificate-holder intended to create no trust unless and until he himself had derived benefit from the company. I am unable to accept that contention. I have been referred to the cases of Knight V/s. Knight (1839) 3 Beav. 148 : 9 L.J. (N.S.) Ch. 354 : 4 Jur. 839 : 52 R.R. 74 and to Lord Longdale's remarks at page 172 where he lays down that to create a valid trust there are three requisites (1839) 3 Beav. 148 : 9 L.J. (N.S.) Ch. 354 : 4 Jur. 839 : 52 R.R. 74 the words must be such that on the whole they ought to be construed as imperative; (2) the subject-matter of the trust must be certain; (3) the objects or persons intended to be benefited must be certain. It is conceded that in regard to Nos. 1 and 3 the requirements there set forth are fulfilled in the case. But it is said that the subject-matter of the trust was not certain inasmuch as a specific sum was not mentioned. When a certificate-holder remitted to the company monies, he was remitting quite clearly 30 per cent, of that money to the company to he held by them in trust for the charity mentioned and 70 per cent, for that fund out of which benefits were expected to be gained. To my mind requirement No. 2 is amply fulfilled. In Milroy V/s. Lord (1862) 7 L.T. Rep. 178 : 4 D.F.and J. 264 : 31 L.J. Ch 798 : 8 Jur. (N.S.) 806 : 135 R.R. 135 Lord Justice Turner at page 181 says: I take the law of this Court to be well-settled that, in order to render a voluntary settlement valid and effectual, the settler must have done everything which, according to the nature of the property comprised in the settlement, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property, and render the settlement binding upon himself. He may, of course, do this by actually transferring the property to the persons for whom he intends to provide, and the provisions will then be effectual; and it will be equally effectual if he transfers the property to a trustee for the purposes of the settlement and declares that he himself holds the trust for those purposes.

(3.) When a certificate-holder sent to the company monies which were transmitted periodically, he was clearly communicating the object which was to be fulfilled in regard to the 30 per cent, and having by accepting the certificate, undertaken the obligations contained in the certificate he did all that he had to do as visualised by Lord Justice Turner and a trust was there and then created; and the company from that time held the monies as trustees for carrying out the object of the trust. In the matter of this liquidation, donation certificates and bonds, have been very fully dealt with by Stone, J. in his judgment in Application No. 2720 of 1933, in the course of which he expressed the view that the certificate-holders are entitled to 70 per cent, of the monies they subscribed to the company. The exact matter which is before me was not argued before Stone, J., but from his judgment I received great help. In my view the monies in the suspense account amounting to the sum I mentioned, namely Rs. 2,335-2- 10, should be allocated towards the trust and the charity which is mentioned in conditions Nos. 3 and 5 of the donation certificate issued by the Company before it went into liquidation and the prayer of the Managing Official Liquidator is, therefore, granted. Costs of the certificate-holders Rs. 75.