Report No. 17

6. Section 1.-

The Act does not extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir,1 It does not also extend to Andaman and Nicobar Islands, though power is reserved for the Central Government to extend the Act to them. We recommend that, it should extend to those Islands.

The exceptions mentioned in the second paragraph may remain. The exception relating to distribution of prizes taken in war among the captors is based on the decision in Alexander v. Duke of Wellington, (1830) 2 Russ & M 35. Therein it was decided that all prizes taken in war vest under law in the sovereign. The practice in England was to grant under a Royal warrant the property so taken upon trust to distribute the same amongst the captors. The House of Lords held that such an instrument did not clothe the cestuis que trust with any interest and, therefore, the cestuis que trust had no right in equity to enforce the trust.

Before general distribution the trust itself could, at the pleasure of the sovereign, be revoked or varied. This principle was applied in Kinloch v. Secretary of State for India in Council, 7 App Cas 619, 15 Ch D I, wherein it was held that even though the instrument uses the word "in trust", it is thereby intended only to convey that the person named was appointed as an agent of the sovereign to effect distribution, and does not create a trust. The occasion for the application of the principle may be rare, but we see no reason to omit it.

1. See Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Schedule, and also the Jammu and Kashmir (Extension of Laws) Act, 1956 (62 of 1956).