RE LAL DIPCHAND HARDASANI AND OTHERS

HCMP 1864/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGSNO 1864 OF 2025

____________

____________

____________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

____________________________________

A.     INTRODUCTION

1.  By an ex parte originating summons of 20th October 2025, as amended on 17th November 2025 (“the Application”), the Applicants sought, inter alia:

1.1     a declaration that there are no surviving trustees of Inland Lot No.2727 (“the Land”); alternatively, that the existing trustees cannot be found or their identities ascertained;

1.2     an order that the Applicants be appointed as the trustees of the Land in substitution for the existing trustees and their successors; and

1.3     an order that the legal estate in the Land, together with all buildings and appurtenances thereon, be vested in the Applicants.

2.  At the hearing on 23rd April 2026, I granted these items of relief.  I now set out my reasons for so doing.

B.     THE BACKGROUND

3.  The Applicants are the current “trustees”^[1] of the Hindu Association (“the Association”), which is a society registered under the Societies Ordinance (Cap.151) and a charitable body registered under s.88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap.112).  The Association represents the Hindu community in Hong Kong.

4.  In 1928, a 999-year lease of the Land was granted to Metharam Lokoomall, Jeramdas Hoondamal and Veerahsamy Soonderam (“the Original Trustees”) to hold “as Trustees for the Hindoo Community in Hong Kong” (“the Trust”), to be used as a cemetery for the Hindu community (“the Cemetery”); permission was subsequently granted for the erection of a Hindu temple thereon (“the Temple”).

5.  The evidence filed in support of the Application has recounted in some detail the interesting history of the formation of the Association, the grant of the lease of the Land, and how the Cemetery and Temple came to be built.

6.  The Original Trustees were founding members of the Association.  The Association raised funds for the building of the Cemetery and the Temple.  For some decades, the Association has maintained the Land (including the Cemetery and Temple).  Over the years, the Association has carried out various activities in furtherance of the charitable purposes of the Trust, establishing a library and medical clinic, and arranging for communal meals, religious rites and festivals, and weddings.

7.  By now, the Original Trustees must have passed away.  However, as at the date of the hearing, they were still named as the owners of the Land, in the capacity of trustees, in the Land Register.

8.  In December 2022, the Association sought approval from the Buildings Department to install a lift at the Temple, to improve accessibility for physically challenged or senior visitors, who would otherwise have to climb stairs to reach the prayer hall.  The Buildings Department queried whether the Association had the authority from the owners of the Land to make the application.  In 2023 and 2024, the Association’s former solicitors sought to persuade the Land Registry to register the Association as the owner of the Land.  Not surprisingly, those attempts failed, since there was no evidence of any transfer of ownership, and since in any event the Association is an unincorporated body.  The proposed building works have therefore not been able to proceed.

9.  In October 2025, the current Application was made.  The immediate purpose is to enable the Land to be registered in the names of the Applicants as trustees, so that they can resubmit an application to the Buildings Department and proceed with building works at the Temple.  In due course, the Applicants intend to seek a certificate of incorporation under the Registered Trustees Incorporation Ordinance (Cap.306) to enable the Land to be managed by an incorporated trust, so as to avoid a recurrence of the problem that has arisen.

10.  The papers for the Application were served on the Secretary for Justice in his capacity as parens patriae, who has indicated that he adopts a neutral stance.  The making of the Application has also been advertised at the Temple, in newspapers, and on the Association’s website, so as to give notice to potentially interested parties.  None have come forward.

C.     THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE TRUSTEE ORDINANCE AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE

C1.    Power to appoint new trustees

11.  Section 42(1) of the Trustee Ordinance (Cap.29) (“the TO”) provides that the court may, whenever it is expedient to appoint a new trustee or new trustees, and it is found inexpedient, difficult or impracticable so to do without the assistance of the court, make an order appointing a new trustee or new trustees, either in substitution for or in addition to any existing trustee or trustees, or although there is no existing trustee.

C2.    Standing of the Applicants

12.  Counsel for the Applicants, Mr Tim Parker SC (leading Mr Azan Marwah), submits that as the current case concerns a charitable trust in relation to the Land, the Applicants have standing to make the Application pursuant to s.57A(a)(iii) and (b)(ii) TO, being persons otherwise interested in the Trust, and for the purposes of the better administration of the Trust.

13.  Section 57A(a)(iii) should not be construed narrowly: 釋照月 (Sik Chiu Yuet) v Secretary for Justice [2018] 4 HKLRD 194 at [36] (Lam VP, as he then was).  Cf. construction of “any person interested in the charity” in s.28 Charities Act 1960 in Haslemere Estates Ltd and another v Baker and others [1982] 1 WLR 1109 at 1122B-E (Megarry VC).

14.  I agree that the Applicants have standing to make the Application.  They are “persons otherwise interested in the trust”, being persons who have good reason for seeking to enforce the Trust and to secure its due administration.  They have been actively involved in the management of the Land and the Temple, and have been nominated by the Association to act as trustees of the Land.

C3.    No identifiable trustees of the Land

15.  As mentioned, the Original Trustees must have passed away by now.  Searches at the Births and Deaths Registry were carried out, but no record of the deaths of the Original Trustees was found.

16.  According to a newspaper article from 1934, it seems that some time in the 1930s, the Original Trustees appointed A. Ponnusamy, Suppian Soondrum, and Kassi Ram as new trustees of the Land (“the Second Trustees Group”).  However, any records which the Association may have had about this appointment, and indeed the title deeds and trusteeship deeds relating to the Land, were lost during the Second World War.  Searches in relation to the Second Trustees Group were also conducted at the Births and Deaths Registry, which do not appear to have borne fruit.

17.  It is known that Suppian Soondrum passed away in August 1946.  In all probability, the other two members of the Second Trustees Group would have also passed away by now: assuming they were at least 18 years old in 1934, they would be at least 110 today.

18.  The Applicants have produced newspaper articles suggesting that the Second Trustees Group somehow transferred their trusteeship to the Association; it is not clear what, in law, was actually done.

19.  The Applicants’ searches amongst the available records of the Association do not show that any trustees were appointed after the Second Trustees Group.

20.  In the circumstances, I was satisfied that there are no surviving trustees of the Land; even if there are, they cannot be found or their identities ascertained.

21.  I was further satisfied that there is practical utility in granting a declaration to this effect, removing any possible ambiguity as to who comprise the trustees of the Land upon appointment of new trustees, and making it clear that Original Trustees should no longer remain as trustees on the Land Register.

C4.    Appointment of Applicants as Trustees

22.  The principles governing the exercise of the court’s discretion to appoint new trustees under s.42(1) TO were summarised in The Ban Khi and others v The Loei Beng and another [2019] HKCFI 1492 at [36] to [41] (DHCJ William Wong SC).

22.1     The court may exercise the discretion whenever it is expedient to do so.

22.2     The court may displace a trustee against his will and appoint a new trustee in his place. Actual misconduct on the part of the trustee does not need to be shown, but the court must be satisfied that his continuance in office would be prejudicial to the due performance of the trust, or impede the effectual execution of the trust, and so adversely affect the interests of the beneficiaries.

22.3     In deciding whether exercise discretion to appoint a new trustee, the court will take into account, inter alia, the following factors:

22.3.1     the wishes of the person by whom the trust was created;

22.3.2     the interests of all the beneficiaries (which may be conflicting); and

22.3.3     the efficient administration of the trust, and whether the appointment would promote or impede the execution of the trust.

22.4     As for the identity of the person proposed to be appointed:

22.4.1     while the court would not generally appoint a beneficiary as a trustee, owing to the fact that the trustee may be placed in a position where his duty and his interest conflict, there is no rigid prohibition against such appointment as a matter of principle.  Where there are advantages to be gained from such an appointment, and no disadvantages, the court may make it;

22.4.2     the mere fact that a beneficiary with a small interest opposes the appointment of the proposed trustee will not necessarily dissuade the court from making the appointment;

22.4.3     it is not usually the practice of the court to appoint as trustee persons who are resident out of the jurisdiction.

23.  Applying these principles, I was satisfied that it is expedient to appoint new trustees of the Land in the present case, given that there are no surviving or identifiable trustees, and given the need for there to be trustees to manage the Land.

24.  I was further satisfied that the Applicants are appropriate persons to be appointed as new trustees of the Land.  They are all residents of Hong Kong.  They have adduced evidence to establish that they have each given considerable service to the Hindu community of Hong Kong, including through their participation in the management of the Association.  They have contributed to the Association’s de facto management of the Land for many decades.  They have been put forward by the Association to take on the role of trustees of the Land.  The Secretary of Justice conducted searches in public media and using public search engines regarding the Applicants and did not discover any evidence suggesting unsuitability of the Applicants for appointment.

25.  I note that the Application has received support from eleven other organisations within, or with a connection to, the Hindu community in Hong Kong.

C5.    Vesting of the Land in the Trustees

26.  Section 45 TO provides that:

“In any of the following cases, namely –

(a) where the court appoints or has appointed a trustee, or where a trustee has been appointed out of court under any statutory or express power;

  …

the court may make an order (in this Ordinance called a vesting order) vesting the land or interest therein in any such person in any such manner and for any such estate or interest as the court may direct, or releasing or disposing of the contingent right to such person as the court may direct:

Provided that –

  (i)   where the order is consequential on the appointment of a trustee the land or interest therein shall be vested for such estate as the court may direct in the persons who on the appointment are the trustees …”

27.  Section 50 TO provides that such a vesting order, if consequential on the appointment of a trustee, has the same effect as if the persons who before the appointment were the trustees had duly executed all proper conveyances of the land for such estate or interest as the court directs (or, if there is no such person, as if such person had existed and been of full capacity and had duly executed all such conveyances).

28.  Section 53 TO provides that the powers conferred by the TO as to vesting orders “may be exercised for vesting any interest in land, stock or thing in action in any trustee of a charity or society over which the court would have jurisdiction upon action duly instituted, whether the appointment of the trustee was made by instrument under a power or by the court under its general or statutory jurisdiction”.

29.  I was satisfied that it is necessary to make a vesting order to vest the legal estate in the Land in the Applicants, so that they can henceforth administer the Land in accordance with the charitable purposes of the Trust.

D.     CONCLUSION

30.  For these reasons, I granted the relief as indicated in paragraph 1 above.