Skip to content

CS Professional · CSR and Social Governance · Societies and Trusts

A private trust has three beneficiaries: Sunil and Tara, both adults competent to contract, and Uday, a minor. The trustee, Vikas, seeks discharge. Sunil and Tara consent, Uday's guardian has not been approached, the deed has no exit clause and no new trustee or court petition exists. Which statement is correct under Section 71 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882?

Vikas is not discharged by consent. Under Section 71, where there are several beneficiaries, all must consent and be competent to contract. Uday is a minor, so the consent of only Sunil and Tara, a majority, does not satisfy the requirement.

  1. AVikas is discharged because a majority of beneficiaries consented
  2. BVikas is discharged because the minor's consent is not needed
  3. CVikas is not discharged by consent, since all the beneficiaries must be competent to contract and consentCorrect
  4. DVikas is discharged because two competent beneficiaries are enough

Explanation

Section 71(e) requires consent of the trustee and, where there are several beneficiaries, all of them, being competent to contract. Uday is a minor and has not consented in a competent way, so the consent mode fails. Majority consent is not the test.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Societies and Trusts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Societies and TrustsFree diagnostic mock

More Societies and Trusts questions