PROJECT WORK

ON
DOCTRINE OF CYPRES
SUBMITTED TO:
AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY

BY
SUBMITTED BY –
KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082
DEEPALI GUPTA - A3256120107

UNDER GUIDANCE OF
Mr ANNIRUDH VASHISHTHA

AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH
AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
 PROJECT TITLE: DOCTRINE OF CYPRES
PROGRAMME: LL.B, 3rd YEAR, 5th SEMESTER
NAME OF STUDENTAND ENROLLMENT NO:
KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082
DEEPALI GUPTA - A3256120107
.
BATCH :2020-2023
NAME OF GUIDE : Mr ANNIRUDH VASHISHTHA
 DECLARATION BY THE STUDENTS

We hereby declare that the matter in the project work titled

“DOCTRINE OF CYPRES” submitted to Mr ANNIRUDH
VASHISHTHA, professor at Amity Law School, Noida, Amity
University, Uttar Pradesh, is a Bonafide and genuine work done under
the guidance of Mr ANNIRUDH VASHISHTHA . The work done in
the report is original and has not been submitted earlier for the award
of any degree, diploma, or fellowship, or any other university or
institution.

STUDENT’S NAME AND ENROLLMENT NUMBER:

KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082

DEEPALI GUPTA - A3256120107
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our special thanks and gratitude towards our
professor Mr ANNIRUDH VASHISHTHA , as well as other staffs of
Amity Law school who were involved in this project paper, who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this project on “DOCTRINE OF
CYPRES” it helped us gather lots of information about which we were
totally unaware of prior to the project work. we would really like to
thank them for this.
Secondly, we would also like to thank our parents and friends who
helped us a lot in finalizing this research paper within the limited time
frame.
Thanking You!

KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082

DEEPALI GUPTA - A3256120107
 INTRODUCTION

A legal principle known as the "cy pres doctrine" gives judges the authority to interpret the
terms of a will, gift, inheritance, or charitable trust. This theory applies if it is difficult to carry
out the original document's stated conditions or desires, or if they can't be established legally
or executed legally. Once it is in effect, the court is able to determine the donor's or testator's
intentions and carry them out. In light of the US, the UK, and India, this article aids readers in
understanding the theory of cy pres.

MEANING OF THE DOCTRINE

The phrase "cy pres comme possible," which translates to "as near as possible," is where the
term "cy pres" originates. In the context of law, this is making sure that a donor's or testator's
wishes are carried out as closely as feasible, whether they are expressed in a will or as a
component of a charity trust or estate. The instrument or trust may become void and
unenforceable if legal issues arise that make it difficult to transfer money for whatever reason.
Legal action can be necessary, for instance, if a charity declares bankruptcy and is unable to
continue operating or achieve its objectives. Courts can apply the cy pres doctrine to stop it
from "failing." To ensure that a donor's, charitable trust's, estate's, or will's instructions are
carried out as accurately as possible, even if some adjustments are necessary, the cy pres notion
gives courts the flexibility to create their own interpretations. The Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), for instance, states that a court may “substitute another benevolent aim that is judged to
approximate the original charitable purpose as nearly as practicable” in the case of a charity.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF THE DOCTRINE’S APPLICATION

One famous instance of the cy pres theory in action is the 1967 Jackson v. Phillips judgement
of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In this instance, Francis Jackson the testator had
created a trust to “generate a public feeling that would put an end to dark-skinned slavery in
this nation”. The trust's stated aim is invalid because the Thirteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution abolished slavery. The Court dissented, saying that Jackson's goal might
best be met by using the trust “to promote the education, support, and interests of the
freedmen, recently slaves, in those states in which slavery had been thus abolished.
 PURPOSE OF THE CY PRES DOCTRINE

Courts employ the cy pres doctrine, a legal principle, to prevent charity trusts from dissolving
when their initial or ongoing charitable goals are unrealistic or impossible to attain.

The court may decide to select a new beneficiary who closely resembles the donor's original
aim as opposed to voiding the charitable contribution. The court may transfer the funds to a
similar organisation that meets the decedent's overall philanthropic goal, for instance, if the
deceased created a trust with the provision that any remaining trust funds must be distributed
to a particular charity that no longer exists following the death of their last surviving relative.

If the money is left unclaimed or it would be too expensive to provide the money to each class
member individually, the cy pres principle has also been applied to the distribution of class
action settlement payments. In such circumstances, the court may authorise a beneficiary, such
as a charitable organisation.

CONDITIONS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF CY PRES

The prerequisites for the Cy pres Doctrine are as follows:

 The precise meaning must make it challenging to really carry out a donor's intention.
 There must have been a great desire to serve others in the giver.
 The new purpose to which the property will be tied must be as similar to the settler's
original objective as is practical, but it must also be difficult to achieve.

UNDERSTANDING THE CY PRES DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF THE

UNITED KINGDOM

The English trusts law section dealing with charitable trusts is known as the "cy-pres doctrine."
According to the doctrine, the High Court of Justice or the Charity Commission may issue an
order assigning the trust's funds to the next best use if it fails because its goals are impractical
or cannot be achieved. The trustees may choose to put the trust's funds toward a non-land
charity with a value of less than £5,000 (by a two-thirds majority). Although similar and maybe
related principles have been found in Roman law, both in the Corpus Juris Civilis and
subsequent Byzantine law, the idea originated in ecclesiastical law and was taken from the
Norman French cy près comme possible (as near as possible).

The cy-pres notion only applicable before the Charities Act of 1960 when the trust's goal was
either impossible to achieve or impracticable. However, cy-près may be applicable if specific
original intentions are apparent, according to Section 13(1) of the 1960 Act (a provision of the
since repealed Charities Act 1993). "The appropriate reasons," which are defined as "(on the
one hand) the spirit of the donation concerned, and (on the other hand) the social and economic
conditions existing at the time of the proposed revision of the original aims," were introduced
by the Charities Act of 2006 and replaced the previous phrase.

The High Court and the Commission need not be involved in the transfer of property to another
charity in the case of extremely tiny charitable trusts (those with annual revenue of less than
£5,000 and no land). It is outlined in Sections 74 and 75 of the 1993 Act. Along with the
Commission, the general public must be informed after a decision has been taken. The Charities
Act of 2011 now addresses the cy-près theory.

UNDERSTANDING THE CY PRES DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF THE

UNITED STATES

The United States has a Uniform Trust Code (UTC), which is a model code that other
jurisdictions (such as states) may adopt by statute. The UTC states that cy-près only applies to
charitable trusts when the original particular aim of the trust has become impractical or
impossible to carry out and the trust's articles are silent regarding what should happen in such
a situation. According to the UTC, the court may employ cy-près to modify or terminate the
trust in a fashion that is consistent with the philanthropic objectives of the settlor if a specific
charitable objective becomes unlawful, impractical, impossible to fulfil, or wasteful. According
to the UTC, the court cannot use cy-près if "a provision in a charity trust's terms will result in
distribution of the trust property to a non-charitable beneficiary." Additionally, cy-près cannot
be utilised to get around the prohibition on perpetuities. According to the UTC, for non-
charitable trusts, the court may revise or terminate the administrative or dispositive terms of a
trust if, due to events not anticipated by the settlor, the change or termination will further the
trust's objectives.
After the California Supreme Court endorsed cy-près procedures in class action settlements in
1986, American courts adopted the practise. Cy-près proceedings allow money to be utilised
to advance the interests of class members rather than returning to a defendant, which could be
seen as a windfall for a defendant accused of breaking the law. Judge Richard Posner thinks
that the term is misleading when used in relation to class actions because cy-près judgements
have a punitive effect. Cy-près would only be used in "circumstances in which direct
distribution to individual class members is not economically feasible, or where funds remain
after class members are given a full opportunity to make a claim," according to the American
Law Institute's Draft of the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation.

The Ninth Circuit decision in Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, 10-cv-04809, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose), which permitted a class action
settlement and awarded $2 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys, $5,000 to each of the few named
plaintiffs, and no monetary award to an estimated 129 million class members, was appealed by
Google in 2014. The US Supreme Court decided to hear the case in 2014. According to the
allegations in the case of Frank v. Gaos (2018), the judgement was not "fair, reasonable, and
sufficient" as required by Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Ninth
Circuit will decide the plaintiffs' standing before the Supreme Court, which declined to rule on
the case's merits.

CYPRES DOCTRINE: AN INDIAN INSIGHT

Public charity may be managed by the Court of the District Judge under Section 92 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. The doctrine of cy pres is embodied in Section 92, subsection (3).
The Charities Act of England of 1960, Section 13, is where this clause was drawn from. The
cy pres principle could be used by Indian courts to apply public trusts under English law even
before sub-section (3) was adopted. The use of the property by the pres is essentially expanded
by subsection (3). This specifies the circumstances under which the "original objectives" of a
charity or religious trust may be modified and the property may be used cy pres. Under
subsection, mergers of multiple organisations are also permitted (3).

The cy pres doctrine could only be applied prior to the insertion of sub-section (3) if achieving
the trust's goal was "difficult or impossible." Even though the definition of "impossible" was
broad, this requirement still led to a number of issues. For instance, nothing could be done
when maintaining the administration of the trust was highly inconvenient but not "impossible,"
or when an old charity no longer served a useful purpose in the modern era, perhaps as a result
of changes in societal needs or the value of money. Parts 13 and 14 of the Charities Act of 1960
in England and Section 92(3) in India modernised the entire cy pres doctrine situation.

According to Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court may modify an express
or constructive trust established for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature and
permit the trust's property or income, or any portion thereof, to be applied cy pres in one or
more of the following situations:

 Where the original purpose of the trust has been accomplished in whole or in part, or
where the original purpose of the trust cannot be carried out at all or according to the
guidelines given in the trust instrument.
 When the trust’s original purpose is used for a portion made available by virtue of the
trust.
 Where the original intention was put out in whole or in part.
 Have been well-provided for by other means.
 Stopped being a waste of time or a danger to the community.
 Stop providing an appropriate and effective technique of exploiting the property in any
other way.

INDIAN JUDICIARY’S TAKE ON THE CY PRES DOCTRINE

The Indian judiciary has consistently held the position that, because the concept of cy-pres has
its roots in equity, it has a wide range and is used liberally, but there are some restrictions. The
doctrine of cy pres, according to courts, is used not only for the first application of the donation
to charity but also for the ongoing application of any excess capital or earnings. Hindus have
used the cy-pres rule in their philanthropic donations because it is consistent with the teachings
of Hindu Shastra. These ideas and viewpoints are well reflected in the previous rulings covered
here.
 CASE LAWS

 STATE V. MAN SINGH AND OTHERS (1974)

In the current case of State v. Man Singh and Others, Tara Chand Saraf, who resided in
Peshawar many years ago, had a jewellery store that was visible before the Delhi High Court
(1974). He wasn't the father of any kids. On December 20, 1927, he had drafted a will and had
it admitted to probate. The original will can no longer be found, traced, or obtained. The facts
indicated above have been approved in front of the High Court by Mr. Partap Singh, one of the
current trustees of the trust created by that donation. He asserted that he had visited Peshawar
in 1964 and made an unsuccessful effort to track down the original will. He further claimed
that he was informed that the will’s records in the Peshawar Sub-office Registrar’s had been
burned.

DELHI HIGH COURT’S JUDGEMENT

There is no doubt, according to the Delhi High Court, that the testator had a broad charitable
goal that went beyond the particular forms of application that he established, given the
circumstances of the current case. Everything in the will, except from the assertion that he has
no children, points in that direction. It was believed that a performance like this demonstrated
a desire to serve the broader population. The principle of cy-pres must be applied with the
donor's purpose being adhered to as closely as is practical. The trustees must therefore follow
the concept of cy-pres and accomplish what is as near as possible to the intention of the testator.
In light of this observation, the Court ordered that the funds in the hands of the trustees must
be allotted to public welfare purposes.

 ABID HATIM MERCHANT V. JANAB SALEBHAI SAHEB SHAIFUDDIN (2000)

Whether the avowed object with which Sir Adamji Peerbhoy, the great philanthropist, founded
the trust for the Dawoodi Bohra Community in 1883 A.D. requires a change of object under
Cypres doctrine with regard to constitutional parameters in order to make the Trust truly secular
in nature is the issue before the Apex Court in the current Civil Appeal against the Bombay
High Court judgement. The respondent Trust argued that since the Preamble of the Constitution
declares India to be secular, what was feasible in 1883 may not be appropriate or in line with
the lofty ideals of the Indian Constitution. It is this idea that led the Trustees of the Sir Adamji
Peerbhoy Sanatorium Trust to petition the High Court for a variation and amendment to the
Trust's scheme as sanatorium.
APEX’S COURT DECISION

It should be highlighted that a cy-pres application emerges from using the courts' regular
jurisdiction to oversee a charity trust whose specific form of application has not been
challenged by the donor. The court may carry out the charitable intention as if the specific
directive had not been expressed at all when he prescribed a particular form of application that
cannot be carried out but had a charitable intention that was larger than the particular mode of
application prescribed.

Additionally, the donor's purpose should be adhered to as nearly as feasible while using the cy-
pres idea. Therefore, every subsequent application for cy-pres must be restricted to the scope
of that object if the donor chooses a specific item that can take effect, and the application
method must, to the greatest extent feasible, match to his wishes. Even though it seems to have
nothing in common with the original object, a charity may choose it if no other item with a
stronger connection can be found. However, items that are closer to the donor's goal will always
be chosen before those that are further away. According to the facts of the case, the Apex Court
has determined that required adjustments to the Trust's goal should be made to remove
obstacles to its application.

 KALIAMURTHY V. THANGAMANI AND OTHERS (2011)

In the current case of Kaliamurthy v. Thangamani and Others (2011), the appellant Kuppammal
gave her son Veerappa Vanniyar an immovable property consisting of two mahs of wetland at
Akaraivatham in an authentic deed with the stipulation that the donee must feed 50 pilgrims
during the Tamil months of Chitrai and Karthikai at the Madam she consecrated in
Tiruvannamalai. The appellant (Veerappa Vanniyar) claims he is unaware of whether or not
the aforementioned arrangement has been finalised. He also asserts that after Veerappa
Vanniyar passed away, his son Arunachala Vanniyar took over and conducted the Annathanam,
and that Ganapathi Vanniar, who claimed to be Kuppammal's legal heir and who had filed a
lawsuit in Karaikal against Arunachala Vanniyar, demanded the division of his half share in
the property set aside for the charity in light of the charity's alleged existence.

On April 26, 1957, the lower court dismissed the aforementioned lawsuit, and Ganapathi
Vanniar appealed the decision. It is stated that the appeal he filed was denied, upholding the
decision and decree of the lower court. It is further stated that the appellate court's decision
explicitly removed any element of trust or endowment from Kuppammal's donation and further
acknowledged that Arunachala Vanniar was the donor. According to reports, Arunachala
Vanniar left a notarized will dated 18.12.1968 that directs his daughter Kunjammal to inherit
the home with a limited right of enjoyment during her lifetime and grant free access to the other
daughters, and his sons Thangamani Vanniar and Narayana Vanniar to continue to enjoy it by
carrying out specific charitable deeds.

THE MADRAS HIGH COURT’S DECISION

The Madras High Court expressed its opinion that it was interfering with the trial court's
decision in this illustrious case and that the decree had been proposed without a valid reason.
The trial court was considered to have correctly refused the appellant's relief while correctly
granted the relief sought by the respondent by analysing and appreciating the material in the
record in the proper perspective, both factually and legally. Given the aforementioned, the
Court determined that the appellant was not entitled to a declaration of administration of the
suit properties under the theory of cy pres in accordance with Arunachala Vanniar's will, which
was dated 18.12.1968. Additionally, the Court held that the respondent has the right to divide
and retain ownership of one-half of the action.

 V. G. BHOOPATHI V. ADHI LAKSHMI AMMAL DHARMA CHATHIRAM (2017)

Adhilakshmi Ammal founded the Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Chathiram in

Thirukazhukundram Village during her lifetime, and it has provided free housing for the
underprivileged since 1890. During her lifetime, she spent about Rs. 10,000 on renovations and
invested Rs. 1,500 in M/s Arbuthnot and Co., Madras. She executed a trust deed on February
10, 1900, and had it recorded. The Trust Deed obliged the Trustees to take care of the Choultry,
keep it lit with lamps (Deepam), offer pilgrims with shelter, and provide water from the fixed
deposit interest. Adilakshmi Ammal designated her foster son Devaraja Mudaliar as the first
Trustee.

He designated his son-in-law Gajaraja Mudaliar as the Executor of the Will in order to maintain
the Choultry after his passing and granted him permission to rent out a portion of the Choultry
in order to raise money and carry on the charity. Gajaraja Mudaliar was in control of the
property till his passing as a result. Gajaraja Mudalia's wife Padmavathi Ammal passed away
before her husband, leaving behind their children Kamalabai Ammal and Srinivasan. Since
going missing, Srinivasan had not been located. Kamalabai Ammal died on January 5, 2004,
leaving behind two boys and two daughters. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, Gajaraja Mudliar’s junior
wife, bore him two sons and three daughters. The present conflict was between his daughter
from his first marriage and his sons from his second marriage.
OBSERVATION BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

Given the facts, it is obvious that the trust's goal cannot be achieved using the directives stated
in document Ex. A-2, the trust's establishing document. As "parens patriae," the Court has a
duty to safeguard trust property that has come into conflict with people who have improperly
transferred trust property and people who aren't actually interested in the trust and have never
explicitly or implicitly discharged the trust's obligations or given up the right to act as trustee.
The Cypres Doctrine, as outlined in Section 92 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must
therefore be followed.

CONCLUSION

Cypres means approximately next, or as maybe it comes into operation as a case of a religious
or charitable trust when the undertaking of charitable trust becomes inexpedient the court will
commit its cypres. The objective of such a trust must be Generous. It can be said that the
Doctrine of Cypres is a legal concept that gives the court the power to interpret the terms after
will, gift, or charitable trust. It is worth noting that the legal doctrine of cy pres comes as a
saviour for unenforceable legal documents by showering relief on them thereby making it
feasible for them to function and fulfil their purpose.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cy_pres_charitable_trusts

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-500-
8595?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1063541

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cy-pres-doctrine.asp

https://fabreads.com/2020/08/07/equity-trust-cypress-doctrine/