Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and R.N.Prasad JJ. 1. Lal Mani Tiwari, is a transferee by a gift deed of trust property. The trust was basically created by a deed of dedication on 22nd May, 1930. An idol of Hanuman Jee had been dedicated along with the lands to the deity. Forty four years later one of the trustees, Chandrika Prasad Pandey, on 19 June 1974 executed a deed of gift in resepct of all the properties including deity and the land belonging to the latter in favour of the petitioner, Lala Mani Tiwari, who, it is said, came into possession of these properties. 2. The Board under the Bihar Religious Trust Act, 1950 issued a notification dated 18th September, 1984 under section 32 of the Act to manage the affairs of this trust. The petitioner, Lal Mani Tiwari, had earlier filed a writ petition complaining that prior to issue of the notification he had not received notice. The notification, thus, stood quashed with a direction that notice be given to the petitioner (C.W.J.C. No. 4702 of 1984) and the matter be examined afresh. The matter was examined afresh and others were also heard, namely, Gorakh Prasad and Smt. Lilawati Sinha. The Chairman of the Board came to a conclusion on the basis of the materials on record that trust in question is a public trust and had appointed a temporary trustee to manage the affairs of the trust till the matter is finally determined by a competent court. 3. The interim arrangement has virtually been made to protect the trust. The petitioner resisted this interim arrangement and also a reference to a competent court. Given the occasion, the petitioner would like to control the property. 4. Trusts follow the rule of perpetuity. The dedication was made under the deed as stood in 1930. The property of the trust could not be alienated by transfer. If the contention of the petitioner is that he is, in genealogy, also a part of the family then at best he may claim to be a trustee if provided in the deed but not an owner. 5. The issue still remains whether it is a private or public trust. The interpretation would rest on the deed dated 22nd May, 1930. 5. The issue still remains whether it is a private or public trust. The interpretation would rest on the deed dated 22nd May, 1930. Finding that one of the trustees had attempted to alienate the property and transferred it by a gift, between the persons who had complained of the transfer and others who had intended to receive the properties, had drawn jurisdiction of the Board under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950. Chandrika Prasad Pandey was in a fiduciary capacity as a trustee. He was bound by the terms of the dead dated 22nd May, 1930 so would any other trustee. 6. A trust cannot be transferred unless a situation is created that there is no trustee to hold the property. In that case the matter has to be placed before the principal court of original jurisdiction to ensure that the trust survives in perpetuity. 7. Thus, the mater relating to interpretation, whether the trust is a private or public trust, is yet to be considered by the Chairman. There is no error in the order passed on the writ petition. Further, in so far as the petitioner, Lal Mani Tiwari, is concerned, he cannot have any status as a transferee of the trust property. The issue is only on the interpretation of the trust as was created in 1930. 8. The appeal is misconceived and accordingly, dismissed.