AbstractThecy-prs doctrinelegaldoctrinethat first arose incourtsofequity. The term can be translated (from old Norman French to English) as "as near as possible" or "as near as may be."This doctrine originated in the law of charitable trusts, According to this doctrine when the original objective of the settlor or the testator became impossible, impracticable, or illegal to perform, the cy-prs doctrine allows thecourtto amend the terms of thecharitable trustas closely as possible to the original intention of thetestatoror settlorto prevent the trust from failing.This paper is an attempt to trace the history of this very important equitable doctrine analyse the development of the doctrine. Then we will see in this paper the application of the doctrine in Indian legal system in deep and we will also see the application of the doctrine in English law. There there is an attempt to compare the application of the doctrine in India with the English law. Then at last the important law commission reports related to this topic of research paper. The limitations of the paper is that the simple doctrine do not give enough leeway and since the scope of the doctrine is also fixed so there in not enough matters to research on. So this paper covers only the evolution and implementation part of the doctrine.

1.0 Intoduction:-Although there are multiple definitions of the cy pres doctrine, most authorities generally recognize the doctrine as a saving device that courts may apply to charitable trusts when the exact intent of the settlorcannot be completed exactly as directed. The most cited and commonly followed definition of cy pres today is found in the Restatement (Second): If property is given in trust to be applied to a particularcharitable purpose, and it is or becomes impossible or impracticable or illegal to carry out the particular purpose, and if the settlor manifested a more general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes, the trust will not fail but the court will direct theapplication of the property to some charitable purpose which falls within the general charitable intention of the settlor. The expression cypres in comman English acception means and implies as near as possible (to the testators or donars intentions when these cannot be precisely followed). In Halsburys Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 5B) cypres doctrine has been reffered to as below:-the cypres doctrine- Where a clear charitable intention is expressed, it will not be permitted to fail because the mood, if specified, cannot be executed, but the law will substitute another mode cypres, that is as near as possible to the mode specified by the donar. An application cypres results from the exercise of the courts ordinary jurisdiction to administer a charitable trust of which the particular mode of application has not been defined by the donar. Where he has in fact prescribed a particular mode of application and that mode is incapable of being informed, but he had a charitable intention which trancended the particular mode of application prescribed, the court, in the exercise of this jurisdiction, can carry out the charitable intention as though the particular direction has not been expressed at all. The primary rule to be observed in the application of the cypres doctrine is that the donars intention must be observed as far as possible. Thus, if the donar names a particular object which is capable of taking effect, any application cypres that becomes necessary must be restricted within the limits of that object, and the mode of application must as far as possible coincide with his wishes. A charity may be cypres to the original object even though it seems to have no trace of resemblance to it, if no other can be found which has a nearer connection, but the object near the donars intention will always be selected in preference to those more remote. According to Hanbury[footnoteRef:2] the word has several connotations. In connection with charities, the cypres application of a fund means the application of that fund to objects or purposes which are not precisely those the donar provided for, but which as nearly as possible fit his intentions. It is obivous that such a power of altering the terms of such a trust will only be used where it is impossible or impractible to give literal effect to them as laid down in the trust.[footnoteRef:3] Thus a gift may be saved from initial failure by the presence of a wider or paramount charitable intention to which it is possible to give effect. [2: Modern Equity, pp. 279-87] [3: A.G Vs. Ironmongers (1840) 10 CI & F 908]

Once there is an effective devotion of funds to charity, those funds will remain devoted forever unless there is in the gift an effective provision for devolution. Save in the special case, the possibilty of a lapse or a resulting trust is excluded. Cy pres is available without there being width of charitable intent. Its jurisdiction depends upon the charities Act, 1960, Section 13. In such cases the court will frame a scheme and it will be carried out.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Ratilal Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388]

Where there is surplus of funds after the specified charitable object has been carried out, the same will be applied cy pres, provided a paramount intention of charity apperas.[footnoteRef:5] A court has no authority to sanction any deviation from the donars expressed intention so far as it can be given effect. Similarly, because the court considers the application of trust property or its income to another purpose which would be more expedient or benefecial, it has no authority to do so. [footnoteRef:6] [5: Campden Charities, Re, (1881) 18 Ch D 31; A.G of Bengal Vs S. Webb Johnson, AIR 1925 Cal 797] [6: Ratilal Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388]

Hanbury[footnoteRef:7] has therefore rightly pointed out that such a power is altering purposes must be hedged around with safeguards, but in recent years, especially in connection with trusts with long outmoded purposes, it has been found neccesary to relax them. Application of cy pres is justified in varing circumstances. He from this point of view, divides such cases into two parts: first, where the problems arise at the commencement of a charitable trust, to which the width of a charitable intent provides the answer; secondly, problems that only arise subsequently, to which perpetual dedication to charity provides the answer. [7: Modern Equity, p. 280]

2.0 Evolution of The Doctrine:-The doctrine of cy pres has existed nearly as long as the concept ofcharity, but the doctrine arose so long ago that its true origin is obscuretoday.The doctrine existed long before its application in the Englishcourts of chancery, and it existed long before the advent of Christianityand the Church.A case appears in the Digest of Justinian whereModestinus, a celebrated jurist, applied the cy pres doctrine to a legacyestablished in third century Rome.8 Although the precise reason forthe adoption of cy pres by the English chancery courts during theMiddle Ages is unknown, the most plausible suggestion is that Englishchancellors, who were ecclesiastics trained in Roman civil law,resurrected the doctrine to save bequests for religious charitablepurposes, which thereby subjected the trust property to the control ofthe Church." Fisch explained the use of cy pres as the chancery court'spersonification of charity as a fictitious person with all the rights of a real beneficiary but exempt from the Rule Against Perpetuities.Earlycourts treated the settlor's specific object or charity as a mere means togiving effect to a general charitable intent.Lord Eldon described thisattitude of the early courts: Where a legacy is given so as to denote, that charity isthe legatee, the Court does not hold, that the mode is ofthe substance of the legacy; but will effectuate the gift tocharity, as the substance; providing a mode for thatlegatee to take, which is not provided for any otherlegatee.The cy pres doctrine is not merely limited to English common law; cypres also exists in French and Spanish civil law.Today, almost all jurisdictions in the United States recognize the cypres doctrine. Massachusetts judicially recognized the doctrine of cypres in the leading case of Jackson v. Phillips. The majority of thestates that recognize the doctrine apply it when the purpose of aparticular charitable trust becomes impossible, impracticable, orillegal.' Most courts utilize the three-part test to determine iftheapplication of cy pres is appropriate.These courts continue to apply cypres only when the settlers specific intent has become literallyimpossible or impracticable, despite the uneconomic consequences.'Today, some courts have begun to apply the cy pres doctrine morebroadly. With the recent addition of the term wastefulness to the UTCand the Restatement (Third),the drafters allow courts to consider theeconomic inefficiencies of charitable trusts in need of reform.TheUTC and the Restatement (Third) represent the broadest application ofthe cy pres doctrine, but few states have adopted the broaderstates continue to literally interpret the terms impossible, impractical, orillegal from the Restatement (Second).3.0 Application of Doctrine In IndiaThe first and foremost task is to find out which trusts are charitable, in order to determine the application of the doctrine of cy pres. After browsing through the various Acts, it canbe concluded that the meaning and scope of the words public or charitable is very much similar both in the Indian and English context. In order to be charitable a trust must be either for the relief of poverty or for the advancement of education or religion, or for anypurposes beneficial to the community as inEngland.Section 18 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 classifies charity into the followingprinciple divisions:Advancement of religionAdvancement of knowledgeAdvancement of commerce, health and safety of the public; andAdvancement of any other object beneficial to mankind.The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 also provides the meaning of charitable purpose. UnderSection 9 of the said Act, charitable trust includes:Relief of poverty or distressEducationMedical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility,but does not include apurpose which relates:(A)To sports,or(B)Exclusively toreligious teachingor worship. For example, the following have been held to be charitable pr religious purposes:Gift of property to temple or to idol[footnoteRef:8] [8: Thakersy Devraj vs. Harbhan Narsy, 8 Bom432, as cited inGandhi, B.M,Equity, Trusts and SpecificRelief,(Lucknow, Eastern Book Company. 2nd Ed. 1993)]

Gift for the maintenance of priestsGift to dignitary of church Gift for building wells, troughs[footnoteRef:9], hospitals, schools and universities, for feeding the poor etc. [9: Jamnabai vs. Khimji , 14 Bom 1, as cited in Gandhi, B.M, Equity, Trusts and Specific Relief,(Lucknow,Eastern Book Company. 2nd Ed. 1993) ]

Gift for keeping a choultry in repair.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Gulam vs. Ajia, 4 Mad HC 44, as cited in Gandhi, B.M, Equity, Trusts and Specific Relief, (Lucknow,Eastern Book Company. 2 nd]

Section 10 and 11 of the Bombay Public Trusts act is worth mentioning in this context.Section 10 of the said Act provides:Notwithstanding any law,custom or usage, apublic trust shall not bevoid only ontheground that the persons or objects for the benefit of whom or which it is created are unascertained or unascertainable.Hence, a charity created for such purposes as dharma, punyadan etc. is not void only on the ground that the objects for which it is created are unascertained or unascertainable.Section 11 of the same Act runs as under: A public trust created for the purposes some of which are charitable or religious andsome of which are not, shall not be deemed to be void in respect to the charitable orreligious purposes only on the ground that it is void with respect to the non-charitable ornon-religious purpose.The test to determine whether an object is of general public utility or beneficial to the community is not whether the testator believed it to be so, but whether the court considers it to bebeneficial to the public having regard to the nature and character of the trust and at the same time in so deciding the court would be guided by the Indian ideas andparticularly the common opinion amongst the community to which the interested partiesbelong.[footnoteRef:11] [11: Trustees of Tribune Press vs. C.I.T, AIR 1939 PC 208, ascited in Gandhi, B.M, Equity, Trusts andSpecific Relief, (Lucknow, Eastern Book Company 2 nd Ed. 1993).]

The doctrine of cypress applies to chartable trust. it does not apply to private trust the application of the doctrine may be called for in the following three class of cases. (i) Where a general charitable purpose is executed but the author of the trust has not expressed or has failed to express with sufficient distinctness the specific modes by which it is to be carried out by the court.(ii) Where the author of the trust has made gift to a particular charity but that gift is or becomes incapable of taking effect.(iii) Where the charitable purpose expressed by the settler do not exhaust the property affected.Charitable trust:A charitable trust may be defined as a trust for the accomplishment of some purpose which is beneficial to the public.Examples:(i) Advancement of education.(ii) Advancement of religion.(iii) Relief of poverty.(iv) End of diseases.(v) Medical relief.Conditions for the doctrine of cypress:For a court to apply cy pres to reform a charitable trust, the following three elements must be met: (1) an applicant must show that there is a valid charitable trust;(2) current or changed circumstances must frustrate the settlor's specific charitable intent, requiring the use of cy pres to fulfill the settlor's specific directions; and (3) the settlor must have a "general charitable intent" that is not limited solely to the precise purpose specified in the trust instrument.Cy pres is applied in cases where the court concludes that, under the circumstances, the intent of the settler who creates a trust or the testator who makes a will not be contradicted by employing a flexible approach toward the application of the provisions of the document.Without cy pres, the intent of the settler or testator will never be implemented because the document will be without any legal effect and not subject to enforcement by the court. In one case a settler directed that his property be used as a home for retired clergymen, but the clergymen's wives were prohibited from residing there with them. This trust provision substantially reduced the number of applicants to the home. A court ordered the trustee, a person either appointed by the settler or required by law to execute a trust, to ignore this provision under the doctrine of cy pres. However, a court does not have the power to alter a settlers dis-positive provisions. For example, a trustee who is in charge of two charitable trusts cannot be authorized by a court to transfer funds from one charity to the other.A court also has the power under the cy pres doctrine to order trust funds to be applied to a charitable purpose other than the one specifically named by a settler when it was the settlers intention to benefit charity in general and it has become impossible, inexpedient, or impractical to accomplish his or her specific purpose. Since aCharitable Trustcan be perpetual, many become obsolete due to changing social, political, economic, or other conditions. A trust established in 1790 to combat yellow fever would, for example, be of little or no practical value now, since that disease has been virtually eradicated as a result of advances in medicine. When cy pres is applied, the court reasons that the settler would have wanted his or her general charitable purposes implemented despite the changing conditions. In one case a testator provided for two trusts: the first to facilitate the end ofSlavery, and the second to assist runaway slaves. Shortly after the testator died, slavery was abolished, so the purposes of both trusts were completely outdated. A court reasoned that the testator intended the broad purpose of aiding African Americans, so the changes in the structure of society justified the court's application of funds of the trusts to purposes similar to those chosen by the testator. The first trust fund was applied to the education of former slaves in the South, and the second was used to assist impoverished blacks in the city where the testator had lived and granted preference to those who had previously escaped from slavery.The cy pres doctrine can be applied only by a court, never by the trustees of a trust who must execute the terms of the trust. Trustees can, however, apply to the court for cy pres instructions when they believe the trust arrangement warrants it. A cy pres action is instituted by the trustees with the state attorney general as a party to the action, or the attorney general can initiate the suit. Once conditions are deemed suitable for the employment of cy pres, the court has broad discretion in the framing of a scheme for the application of the charitable fund to a purpose "as near as possible" to the one designated by the settler. Some states authorize the living settler toVetothe application of cy pres to an irrevocable trust that he or she created.The doctrine of cy pres is not employed where a settler was concerned with only one specific charitable objective and it fails, or when the settler provides that a gift be made to another upon failure of the charitable gift. When cy pres is not applied and the trust fails without any provision for the property to be given to another, there is aResulting Trustfor the settler or his successors.4.0 The Application of Doctrine in England:-The expression cy-prs originates from Norman French meaning 'near this' Over the centuries the expression has been taken to mean as nearly as possible. The cy.prs doctrine is a principle applicable to gifts for charitable purposes which fail (initially or subsequently) owing to the impossibility or impracticality of giving effect to the donor's intention. Schemes may be approved by the charity Commissioners and the courts for the application of the funds as nearly as possible to the original purposes as stated by the settlor. when the cy-prs doctrine is adopted, the donor or his or her estate is excluded from benefiting by way of a resulting trust. There are only two conditions to be satisfied for a cy-prs application of funds, namely: (a) the impossibility or impracticality of carrying out the original charitable purpose, or the existence of a surplus of funds after the charitable purpose has been fulfilled; and (b) the manifestation of a general charitable intention by the donor as opposed to a specific charitable intention. [footnoteRef:12] [12: Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts By Mohamed Ramjohn Pg-419]

The doctrine of cy pres was initially matter of ecclesiastical law, coming fromNorman Frenchcy prs comme possible(as close as possible), but similar and possibly ancestral provisions have been found inRoman law as well.[footnoteRef:13] [13: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy-prs_doctrine_in_English_law]

The doctrine of cy prs meaning as near as practicable[footnoteRef:14] applied when a trust for a charitable purpose becomes impossible or impractical to carry out. Rather than letting the trust fail and returning the undisposed of trust property to the settlor by way of a resulting trust, the court can approve of a scheme for amending the trust to use the property for another charitable purpose which is as near as possible to the one chosen by the settlor. [14: A. simpson and E.S.C. wcner. The Oxford English Dictionary ]

Prior to theCharities Act 1960, the situations in which the cy-prs doctrine could be used were limited to when the trust's purpose was either impossible or impracticable. The 1960 Act, however, provides in Section 13(1) (now part of theCharities Act 1993) that cy-prs can be applied where the original purposes have:(a) been as far as may be fulfilled; or cannot be carried out, or not according to the directions given and to the spirit of the gift;(b) or where the original purposes provide a use for part only of the property available by virtue of the gift;(c) where the property available by virtue of the gift and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction, and to that end can suitably, regard being had to the spirit of the gift, be made applicable to common purposes;(d) or where the original purposes were laid down by reference to an area which then was but has ceased to be a unit for some other purpose, or by reference to a class of persons or to an area which has for any reason since ceased to be suitable, regard being had to the spirit of the gift, or to be practical in administering the gift;(e) or where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have since they were laid down been adequately provided for by other means; or ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community or for other reasons, to be in law charitable; or ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the gift, regarding being had to the spirit of the gift. This definition was amended by theCharities Act 2006to replace "the spirit of the gift" with "the appropriate considerations", which are defined as "(on the one hand) the spirit of the gift concerned, and (on the other) the social and economic circumstances prevailing at the time of the proposed alteration of the original purposes"[footnoteRef:15].In the case of extremely small charitable trusts (where the charity has an income of less than 5,000 and holds no land) the trustees may agree by a two-thirds majority to transfer the property to another charity, without involving the High Court or Commission.This is contained in Sections 74-5 of the 1993 Act. Once the decision is reached, public notice must be given, and the Commission informed.Cy-prs powers are now enacted in theCharities Act 2011.[footnoteRef:16] [15: Edwards (2007) p.242] [16: C2.6 Charities Act 2011, accessed 27 May 2012]

In England, the cy prs doctrine has been modified by statute. Cy prs is no longer limited to situations where the original trusts are impossible or impracticable the charity commissioners have scheme making powers and trustees or small charitable trusts have some power to modify the trust objects.[footnoteRef:17]The application of the cy pres doctrine depends on whether the charitable trust fails initially or subsequently. where the particular charitable purpose fails at the outset, the trust property cannot be applied in pres unless the settlor had a general charitable intention (but anonymous donors who cannot be identified are deemed to have that intention).[footnoteRef:18] As waters said. 'a general charitable intent might be better described as a requirement of a paramount or overriding intent to give for the charitable purpose of which the particular object set out by the trustee is merely one mode or furtherance .[footnoteRef:19] This requirement means that the property is only applied cy prs when that would accord with the settlor's wishes.Cy Pres is more readily available where the charitable purpose becomes impossible or impractical after the property is already vested in trust for that purpose. The only requirement for the application of the surplus cy prs on a subsequent failure is that the property has been given wholly to charity, in the sense that no other persons have an interest in it. Although this can result in the application of the trust property contrary to the settlor's wishes. this is justifiable in light or the special treatment accorded to charitable trusts. As Professor Scott points out. They are exempted from the rule against perpetuities because they further public interests. However the public interest is not promoted by the creation of a charity which by the lapse of time ceases to be useful. The founder or a charity should understand therefore that he cannot create a charity which shall be forever exempt from modification. Much has been written about cy prs and charitable trusts. The doctrine is but one or many designed to further charitable purposes. [footnoteRef:20] [17: Principles of Equity and TrustsBy Samantha Hepburn, Samantha J. Hepburn] [18: Resulting Trusts By Robert Chambers] [19: Waters (1986) p-624] [20: Resulting Trusts By Robert Chambers]

5.0 Comparison of the Doctrine in English and Indian law:-The doctrine of cy pres has originated from the English law only. The implementation of this doctrine in India is borrowed from english law only. There is huge similarity in doctrine in both India and doctrine that is been followed in English law or in england. The Indian legal system has not made any remarkable amendment in the doctrine. The doctrine is as it is followed in India.In case of application or implementation of the doctrine in both the countries, the doctrine in England has much wider scope than in India.there have been many amendments in charities act in England for widening the scope of implementation of the doctrine. According to the section 13(1) of the charities act 1993 there are six original purposes where the doctrine of cy pres can be applied. Later also there have been many amendments in 2006 and latest act is charities act 2011. But where as in India there has been not more attention has been given to this doctrine. In compare to the application of the doctrine in england in India the scope of the doctrine is less.As the whole doctrine is carried. From the English law so there no such major difference on implementation or application in both the legal systems. It is not that only India has borrowed the doctrine from the English law but many of the countries of the world has borrowed the doctrine from English law. The united states also follow the doctrine as established in english law. There are little changes in doctrine in united states that it is applicable to private trust also which is not stated in english law. But as the origin of this doctrine is from English and some evidences shows that roman law also has some element in it so the countries who borrowed this doctrines has not much altered the doctrine and follow the doctrine as per the english law.6.0 Law Commission Reports:-54th Law Commission Report-In 54th Law Commission Report, the commission recommended reforms on Section 92 of CPC in regards to special proceedings- 1-H.5. In the earlier Report attention was drawn to the legislation regarding cy res undertaken in England, and to the analogous provisions in the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Bombay Act 29 of 1950), (which have been followed by certain other States also). Some difficulties were felt in England by virtue of the limited scope of the cy pres doctrine, under which the court had power to direct the application of the income to another purpose only in certain specified cases, for example, where the original object had failed 1-H.6. Now, there might be cases where it would be desirable to alter the very purpose of application as mentioned in the trust instruments, because the original objective been adequately provided for by other means, or have ceased to provide a suitable method of using the property, or have become useless or prejudicial to the public welfare or are not substantially beneficial to the class of persons for whom the endowment was intended originality. 1-H.7. In England, the Nathan Committee went into great detail in this question. The Committee was satisfied that the most urgent need was to enable the Charity Commissioners to give timely assistance to those trustees who were administering trusts no longer adapted to modern conditions. Since the alteration of the objects of charities (where the object can still be executed) could only be done by a statutory power & the committee recommended suitable legislation regarding cy pres. 1-H8. The Charities Act has carried out. to a large extent, the recommendation of the Nathan Committee. Briefly stated under section 13 of that Act, the original purpose of a charitable gift can be altered to allow the property to be applied cy pres where the original purpose has been fulfilled or cannot be carried out according to the directions and the sprit of the gift or provides the use for parts only of the property or where property available by the virtue of the gift and other applicable for similar purposes can be used in conjunction or where the purposes were laid down with reference to an area which has ceased to be a unit or a class of persons which has ceased to be suitable or where the original purposes have been adequately provided for by other means of ceased to be in law charitable or ceased or ceased to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the gift. Thus a failure of the original purpose is not, now, the only ground for cy pres1-H9 Attention may also be drawn to section 56 read with section 55 of the Bombay Public Trust Act where under on a application by the charity commissioner etc the court can sanction an alteration of the original object of the public trust. It provides that if the court is of opinion that the carrying out of such intension or object is not wholly or partially expedient, practicable, desirable necessary or proper in the public interest the court may direct the property or income of the public trust or any portion thereof to be applied cypress to any other charitable or religious purpose.1.H.10 The previous commission stated-The matter can be considered in detail when the law of public trust is revised.1-H.11 The doctrine of cypress can, even now, be applied suits under section 92.But it's scope will, presumably be limited by the rules of the English Law as unmodified by statute.1-H.I2. We agree with the above recommendation. however, it appears to us that it would be desirable to make the amendment regarding the scope of cy pre without waiting for revision of the law of public trusts. 70th Law Commission Report In the 70th Law commission report. The report stated that under the The rules against the perpetuities in matters of trust property there is need to reform. During the last forty years or so, the Rule against Perpetuities has come under fire in many parts of the world. While the rule expresses a perfectly reasonable policya fair balance between the desires of members of the present generation, and similar succeeding generations to do what they wish with the property which they enjoy4yet it has inevitably become 'encrusted with barnacles'. The law will be improved, and the Rule itself simplified and strenghtened, it has been though, by removing these barnacles. Causes; of dissatisfaction and some representative examples of reformThe maincauses of dissatisfaction with the Rule are two : first, the requirement of absolute certaintythat the interest will vest within the perpetuity period, and its consequent invalidity if any possible combination of events, however, improbable or fantastic, could cause it to vest outside the period; and, secondly, the haish consequences of violating the Rule, whereby the interest fails completely instead of being 'cut down to size'. There is widespread agreement today that some statutory reform of the Rule is necessary. There is much less general agreement as to the form which is such amending legislation ought to take. The various proposals and experiments can be reduced tothree main types :(1) The first is legislation specifically directed against the well-known 'trade' which so oftencause a violation of the rule when the age limit is exceeded. In England, section 163 of theLaw of Property Act, 1925, reduced age contingencies to twentyonewhen this is necessaryto save the gift; similar statutes were enacted in many other jurisdictions.1 Difficulties arisingfrom 'the unborn widow trap' were sought to be remedied in New York, Western Australiaand California, Administrative powers of trustees were excepted from the Rule, in WesternAustralia, Victoria and New South Wales.(2) A second type of reform is to introduce a 'wait and see' rule, whereby the validity ofinterests depends on actual, and not on possible, events. Legislation to this effect was firstintroduced in Pennsylvania in 1947, and, though in a somewhat different from, later inMassachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Vermont, Kentucky, Washington and WesternAustralia.(3) A third method is to give the courts a general discretionary power to reform limitationswhich would otherwise be void so as to make them approximate most closely to the testator'sor settlor's intention within the limits of the Rule. This 'cypres method', as it is called, hasbeen enacted in varying forms in Vermont, Kentucky, Washington, Idaho and California.'

There is high need for reform in India. Lest this should sound pedantic and lest it should bethought that there is no need for reform in India and that all is well with our statutoryprovisions, we would like to refer at this stage to situations wherein difficulties could beexperienced in India also. A slight disregard of the stringent statutory provisions, or amisconception about the age of majority, may lead to defeating the intention of the transferor.In one of his famous articles published in the Harvard Law Review, Professor Leach had thiscriticism to make of the rule"The Rule against Perpetuities is a technicality-ridden legal nightmare, designed to meetproblems of past centuries that are almost nonexistent today. Most of the time it defeatsreasonable dispositions of reasonable property owners, and often it defeats itself. It is adangerous instrumentality in the hands of most members of the bar. It ought to besubstantially, "changed by statute, and the lawyers ought to see that this is done."2Every word of it may not apply to Indian Codified law- But difficulties could arise. In fact,difficulties have arisen. Let us take a reported case. Case of Soundararajan- illustrates the anomaly resulting.

7.0 Conclusion:-To conclude I can say that, the cypress means near, next or as may be. it comes into operation in case of religious or charitable trust. When the execution of charitable trust becomes inexpedient, the court will execute it cypress. the purpose of such trust must be charitable. The use of cy pres distributions for residual or unclaimed class-action funds provides a beneficial method for case conclusion. Often, if an additional distribution were required to individual class members, the extra expenses would likely be disproportionate to the individual amount distributed. The equitable remedy of cy pres offers a solution: a court can, with creativity and cooperation, endeavor to distribute unused funds in a way that most consistently benefits the class (and often the surrounding community) as a whole. As illustrated above, the cy pres doctrine also has been used as the basis to encourage settlement in non-class/mass-joinder Cases. From community centers to educational outreach programs, from environmental Protection funds to legal aid and assistance programs in short, all benefit from cy pres distribution.

Bibleography:-Books-1) Resulting Trusts- By Robert Chambers2) Principles of Equity and TrustsBy Samantha Hepburn, Samantha J. Hepburn3) Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts By Mohamed Ramjohn Pg-419

Articles, Websites And others-

1) A. simpson and E.S.C. wcner. The Oxford English Dictionary

2) Edwards (2007) p.242

3) C2.6 Charities Act 2011, accessed 27 May 2012

4) Waters (1986) p-624

5) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy-prs_doctrine_in_English_law

6) Manupatra.com

5 | Page