Under Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Mr. A bequeaths certain property to Mr. B with a wish expressed in his will: "I hope you will continue this property in the family for the benefit of my children and their welfare." The will does not create any legal obligation but merely expresses a moral wish. Which of the following correctly determines whether a valid trust has been created?

Explanation: Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 defines a trust as "an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner...for the benefit of another." The critical element is obligation—not merely moral wish or hope. The leading English case Knight v Knight (1840) established the "three certainties" principle, which Indian courts have consistently applied: (i) certainty of intention; (ii) certainty of subject matter; and (iii) certainty of objects. In the question, Mr. A's expression fails all three certainties: (i) the language "hope" and "wish" does not demonstrate imperative intention to create a legal obligation; (ii) the purpose (family welfare) lacks specificity; (iii) the beneficiaries ("children and their welfare," "family members") are not ascertained with certainty—which family members? what definition of welfare? Courts consistently distinguish between precatory trusts (often invalid due to uncertainty) and mandatory trusts. Section 6 illustration (b) explicitly provides: "A bequeaths certain property to B 'hoping he will continue it in the family.' This does not create a trust, as the beneficiary is not indicated with reasonable certainty." Thus, option (B) correctly applies Section 3 and the doctrine of certainties.