RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.

1. This Appeal challenges an order and judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22nd July, 2004 (“the impugned judgment”) by which the Suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that no case was made out by the Plaintiff.

2. An Appeal had been preferred by the Appellant challenging the impugned judgment which was disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated 18th December, 2013. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh trial on the ground that it would be unfair on the parties to proceed with the Appeal on record as it stands. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by the Respondent before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court passed an order dated 27th April, 2015 setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench and held that:

“The clear finding recorded by the learned trial court that the parties are agreed that no oral evidence was necessary in the suit and that the only document that was required to be interpreted is the deed dated 29th March, 1949, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter for a de novo trial and ought to have considered all the issues on the basis of the aforesaid position agreed to by and between the parties.”

3. As a result thereof, this Appeal is required to be determined in light of the remand by the Supreme Court for consideration of all the issues on the basis of the position agreed to by and between the parties. Accordingly, we are determining this Appeal on the agreed position recorded by the learned Trial Court that no oral evidence is necessary and that the only document required to be interpreted is the Deed (Indenture of Trust) dated 29th March, 1949.

4. At the outset, it would be necessary to mention that after substantially hearing the matter a suggestion was made to the parties that the parties may explore the possibility of amicable settlement since the disputes involved were amongst close relatives. The parties agreed to refer the dispute to mediation and agreed on the name of Hon'ble Justice J.P. Devadhar, Retired as mediator. This is recorded in the order dated 6th December, 2018 passed by this Court. Pursuant thereto mediation was held and a mediation report was prepared which is dated 14th December, 2018. It was recorded therein that mediation had failed as the offer of Rs. 5 lakhs made by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the Appellant in full and final settlement of his claim was considered by the Appellant to be unreasonable and unacceptable to the Appellant.

A brief background of facts is necessary.

5. An Indenture of Trust was executed on 31st March, 1949 between one Parvatibai Chowhan (“the Settler”) and Rai Bahadur Kunwar Motisingh Lalsingh and Kunwar Gagasingh Motisingh (hereinafter referred to as the said Motisingh and the said Grangasingh) as original trustees which settled the trust property being a plot of land with building constructed thereon and income arising therefrom. The said Indenture of Trust was duly registered.

6. The said Parvatibai died on 24th January, 1963. She was survived by her son Motisingh who had two sons viz. Harmansingh and the original trustee, the said Gangasingh. The said Gangasingh had four sons (Respondent Nos. 2 to 4) who were born prior to the execution of the Indenture of Trust. The Appellant was adopted by the said Harmansingh on 10th July, 1964 i.e. after the Indenture of Trust was executed, by a registered Deed of Adoption. Upon the demise of the said Motisingh, the said Gangasingh was the only surviving trustee. On 22nd September, 1965, the said Gangasingh appointed two of his four sons viz. Digvijaysingh and Kishorsingh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) as trustees on 22nd September, 1965. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the said Gangasingh's two sons as trustees, the said Harmansingh filed Suit No. 267 of 1968 for removal of the said Gangasingh's sons as trustees and for appointm