Breast Cancer Survival Rates Have Steadily Improved for Women—But Not for Men

1. ● Write a letter to your friend for attending the wedding ceremony of your elder brother.
February 07, 2023
Chawkbajar, Chottogram
Dear Rafi,
You will be glad to know that the marriage ceremony of my elder brother comes of on 25th
of February,
2023. I can not even think of passing this happy occasion without your presence. My parents have also
asked me to invite you. Some of our other friends will also attend the ceremony. So I am requesting you
to come to our house at least three days earlier. We, all will have a nice event if you join us.
My best regards to your parents and love to your siblings. Looking forward to see you among us soon.
Yours,
Muhib

2. ● Write an application to the principal of the college for granting admission prayer with transfer
certificate.
February 7, 2023
The Principal
Bandarban Cantonment Public School and College,
Bandarban.
Subject: Prayer for admission on transfer certificate.
Sir,
I beg to state that my father is a government employee. Recently he has been transferred from Dhaka to
Comilla. Our family has already been transferred from Dhaka to Comilla. Now I want myself admitted in
your college. The transfer certificate of my former college is attached here with the application.
May I therefore pray and hope that you would be kind enough to admit me in your college and oblige
thereby.
Yours obediently,
Muhibbul Haque Muhib

3. Charitable trusts
Certainty
Since section 6 is expressly subject to 107, it may be argued that 107 gives the court power to ignore the
requirement of certainty f beneficiary in elation to the charitable trusts.
The trusts in section 99 may be explained by reference to section 3(a). because of the words “unless the
context or subject matter otherwise implies,” the implication 3(a) that a beneficiary must be a person
can be modified by section 99(1) (a) to (d). The new Amendent to TO in 2018 replaces S. 3(e) to add
‘beneficiary’ means a person, or a defined or definitely ascertained class of people for whose benefit the
confidence is accepted.
To constitute the valid trust, it is necessary that objects or purposes are certain and that the directions
to the trustees are given in imperative terms. If the teatator leaves a discretion to the trustee to apply a
fund to a charitable or non charitable purpose at his option no valid charitable trust can be created.
However this does not mean that the trustee cannot be given any discretion under a charitable trust. In
Manorama vs. Kalicharan it has been held that gift for a purpose which can be regarded as charitable or
to charity generall, would be a valid trust even though a wide discretion is given to the trustee. In
Gangabai vs CIT the object of the trust were described in the trust deed as “religious, charitable, cultural
and social” purposes. Held it was not possible to conclude that the trust was set up wholly for religious
or charitable purposes.
Where there is a specific imtention to create a charitable trust defined by S.99, uncertainty as to the
manner in which the trust isto be administered may be cured either, by reference to section 99(2) (*cy
pres) and S.100 or S.101(1)(e) or S.102(1)(a) or by a discretion given to the trustee by the settlor.
Dedication tor Trust
Dharma Raja vs Raja Ammal – The mere decleration of a trust or a execution of a deed is not enough to
constitute a valid endownment; The executor should divest himself of the property. Whether he had
done or not, is to be determined by this subsequent conduct.
Once a valid trust has been created the subsequent conduct of the founder contrary to the dedication
cannot invalidable or affect the trust. Thanthi Trust vs. ITO if a trust had been validly created, any
deviation by founder of the trust would amount only to a breach of trust.

4. Charities
S.99(1) The expression “charitable trust” includes any turst for the benefit of the public or any section
of the public within or without Sri Lanka of any of the following categories:-
a. For the relief of poverty; or
b. For the advancement of education or knowledge; or
c. For the advancement of religion or the maintanence of religious rities and practices; or
d. For any other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads.
“ Similar views were upheld on University of Bombay v Municipal Commission Bombay
How to create a valid charitable trust
2 requirements must be settled. It must:
a) Conform with the legal definition of charity i.e fall within S. 99(1)(a) to (d) and
b) Satisfy the test of public benefit.
The public Benefit requirement is the most important factor to the constitution of a valid charitable
trust. Because even if the trust falls within S.99(1)(a)-(d), it will not be valid ifthe public benefit
requirements is not satisfied.
In ITC v Trustees for Abdul Gaffor Trust HNG Fernando J held that S. 99 does not require a trust to be
solely for the public benefit. Thus a trust which is essentially or substantially for the public benefit may
reasonably be considered to fall within this definition.
*Section of the public
Courts in Ceylon have been willing to recognize a smaller community as a section of the public.
The ‘Burghers’ in Vyrapulle v Perera.

5. The ‘Muslims’ in Abdullah v Otoman and
The ‘Parses’ in Rustomjee v Khan were considered a section of the public and thus held to be a
charitable trust.
Courts were even willing to recognize ‘caste’ as a section of the public as seen in Anthony Gasper v
Bishop of Jaffina and Fernando v Father Bonjean.
S. 99(1)(a) – Relief of poverty
Poverty may mean different things to difference people. Those who have been wealthy but are no
longer so may regard themselves as poor even though still comparatively well off. Support for the
relative is to be found in the words of Sir Evershed in Re Coulthrust: Poverty does not mean destitution.
t is a word of wide and indefinite import, and it can be understood as meaning persond who have to go
short giving due to regard to their status in life.
Two points may be elucidated from statement:
1. A person may may in legal terms be poor without being entirely without means.
2. The terms is wide enough to embrace anyone who does not have enough.
Re Mercatile bank of India Ltd – The relief of the poor must not be relief to a body of private individuals
but must have a public character.
Trustees of Gordhandas Trust vs CIT- Relief of a group of indiviuals like “poor relations” of the donor or
the poor employee of a company would not amount to the charitable trust.
Trusts for the relief of poverty from a major exception to the usual rule as laid down in Re Oppenheim.
The courts have long accepted the so called ‘poor relation’ exception, whereby a valid trust can be
established for the relief of poverty among the settlor’s poor relations. This is valid so long as the class
of beneficials is not further restricted, for example, to a group of named relations.
In Dingle v Turner a trust was established for the benefit of poor employees of Dingle & co. The class
was therefore identified by a personal nexus, that is they were all employees of the same film, such as
had been held invalid in Re Oppenhim. On the authority of the ‘poor relations’ cases the court held that
poverty was an exception a trust for poor persons who are also identified by a common ancestor
employment by the same firm or some other personal nexus, does not lack the necessary public benefit.
Re Scarisbrick’s Will Trust- A gift for the relief of poverty in a particular class of relations could be
charitable. The class named was “the relations of my son and daughter’.
Re Segelman- The testator listed some, but not all, of his siblings, and stated that they, together with
their issue, formed the class to be benefited. Thus it appears that even a selected group of relations may
qualify in some circumstances.

6. In Commissioner of income tax vs the Trusteesof the Abdul Gaffor Trust, a trust for “charity once a year
during the month of Ramalhan” was held on their practice of distributing alms to the poor during that
month , “The trust was regarded as one for the relief of poverty.
In Sri Lanka trusts for providing relief to the poor in the Burgher’ community (Vyrapulle v Perera) and
providing dowries for poor girls (CIT v Abdul Gafoor) has been upheld.
S. 99(1)(b)- Advancement of Education or knowledge
The term education has been widely construed. It is assumed that anything that forms a part of normal
educational process and which can be said to fall within that definition will be regarded as education
and any trust for the advancement of such will be charitable, subject to the requirement of public
benefit.
The term education has been widely construed. It is assumed that anything that forms a part of the
normal educational process and which can be said to fall within that definition will be regarded as
education and any trust for the advancement of such will be charitable, subject to the requirement of
public benefit.
The inclusion of the word ‘knowledge’ as an alternative to education permits trusts for the furthermore
of research as seen in CIT v Baddrawathie Fernando Charitable Trust. Sri Lankan Court have been
unfattered by English precedent and free to hold that research at least in subjects are unquestionably in
the public benefit.
Falil Caffor v CIT- Educational instruction or training in any department of human activity is a charitable
purpose.
Ecumenical Christian Centre v CIT- search for truth, diffusion of knowledge, foundation and
maintenance of conference centers, reading room for the general use of members etc are objects
directly relating to education.
However, in Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust v CIT SC India confined the meaning of ‘education’ to the
process of systematic instruction, developing knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal
schooling.
D. V. Arur v CIT- In order to be charitable, education must relate to the public and a trust for the
education of members of a family or descendants of an individual is not charitable.
The test for public benefit laid down in Oppenheim v Tobbaco Securities Trust Ltd. Has been adopted in
Sri Lanka. A section of the public does not include a group of people ascertained by reference to some
tie of blood or contractual relations. Facts of Oppenheim- A trust was set up for the education of
children of employees or former employees of a particular company or any subsidiaries. The numbers of
such employee was over one lakh. Nevertheless court held that the requirement of public benefit had
not been satisfied.
However, A more liberal approach was taken in Re Koettgen’s Trust.
CIT v Abdul Gaffoor- Court did not follow Re Koettgen’s Case and held trust for the descendants of
testators family was to be not for the public benefit. Main difference between the two is that in Re
koettgan’s primary purpose was to educate

7. British born subjects while in Abdul Gaffoor it was to benefit the descendants of the testator.
Re Shaw- schools for prostitutes and pickpockets will not be charitable.
Baldry v Feintuck- Campaign to restore free school milk. Attempt to challenge govt policy thus political
and not charitable. Similarly in Southward v AG- ‘clear, dominant message’ was political anf thus not
charitable.
S. 99(1)(c)- Advancement of religion or maintenance of religious rities and practices
In English law only trusts for the advancements of religion is considered charitable (Pemsel) Sri Lanka,
there is an expansive approach as trusts for ‘maintenance of religious rities and practices’ are included.
This is because in Sri Lanka rituals are as important in the practice of religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam
are heavily ritualistic.
In Ram Sarup Dasi v Saha Ct held for a religious endownment to be a charity in a legal sense it will have
to be for the purpose of public nature. i.e. for the benefit of the community or some part of it. The
beneficiaries must be the general public or a section of the public.
However, Dr LJM Cooray states that the test of public benefit for religious trusts in Sri Lanka is virtually
nonexistent. This is because:
1. The inclusions of “religious rities and practices” makes the test of charity in SL much wider than in
UK.
2. The courts have consistently upheld charitable religious trusts which are supposedly for the benefit
of one individual or a few individuals, thus treating public benefit requirement as virtually
nonexistent.