Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. K. Hazra
JUTHIKA SIRCAR - Appellant
Versus
OFFICIAL TRUSTEES OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Suit Nil Of 1972
Decided On : DECEMBER 20, 1972
TRUSTS - TRANSFER OF TRUST PROPERTIES - SECTION 56 OF THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT, 1882 - RULE IN SAUNDERS V. VAUTIER - APPLICABILITY - EXCLUSIVE BENEFICIARIES - MORAL CERTAINTY OF ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a husband and wife, sought to have the Official Trustee transfer the trust properties held by him under a deed of trust to them jointly. The trust was created by the husband's father for the benefit of the husband and his heirs. The husband was appointed as the sole trustee of two immovable properties under the first deed of trust, which was not relevant to the application. The second deed of trust, which was the subject of the application, appointed the Official Trustee as the trustee of certain Government securities. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to the transfer of the trust properties under Section 56 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and the Rule in Saunders v. Vautier.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the transfer of the trust properties. The court found that the petitioners were not the exclusive beneficiaries of the trust, as the deed of trust provided that upon the death of the husband, the income of the trust fund would be paid to the wife for the maintenance of herself and her family, and upon the death of both the husband and wife, the trust fund would be transferred to the heirs of the husband according to the law of intestate succession. The court also found that the petitioners could not rely on the Rule in Saunders v. Vautier, as they were not the ultimate beneficiaries of the trust and there was no moral certainty that they would be the ultimate beneficiaries.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the transfer of the trust properties under Section 56 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882? 2. Whether the Rule in Saunders v. Vautier applied in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 56 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 allows a beneficiary who is competent to contract to require the trustee to transfer the trust property to him or to such person as he may direct. However, this provision only applies where the beneficiary is the exclusive beneficiary. 2. The Rule in Saunders v. Vautier allows a beneficiary to put an end to an accumulation of income which is exclusively for his benefit. However, this rule only applies where the beneficiary is the ultimate beneficiary and there is no other person who has any interest in the execution of the trust of accumulation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application and ordered the petitioners to pay the costs of the application to the Official Trustee.
( 1 ) SIR Nripendra Nath Sircar during his lifetime created two Trusts for the benefit of his fourth son Dhirendra Nath Sircar and his heirs. Under the first deed of Trust which is dated December 6, 1943, Shri Dhirendra Nath Sircar was appointed as the sole trustee of two immovable properties. The first deed of trust is nut relevant for the purpose of the application made before me.
( 2 ) THIS application has been made under Sections 25 and 26 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913 and Sections 34 and 36 of the Indian Trusts Act. 1882. The petitioners I and 2 are Sm. Juthika Sircar and Sri Dhirendra Nath Sircar. Sm. Juthika is the wife of Sri Dhirendra Nath. The other petitioners 3, 4 and 5 are Sm. Alaka Ghose, Sm. Sujata Basil and Sm. Sumitra Ghose. They are the three daughters of Sm. Juthika Sircar and Shri Dhirendra Nath Sircar.
( 3 ) IN this application prayer (a) of the petition relates to the second Deed of Trust dated March 12, 1945 created by Sri Nripendra Nath Sircar by which the Official Trustee of Bengal was appointed as the trustee. The trust security consists of certain Government securities of the face value of Rs. 2,85,000/- Now it consists of two immovable properties purchased out of the sale proceeds of the Government securities.
( 4 ) THE petitioners before me pressed for prayer (a) of the petition, which is as follows:"the Respondent Official Trustee be directed to transfer all Trust properties held by him under the Deed of Trust dated the 12th March, 1945 to your petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 jointly. "prayer (b) of the petition is not pressed before me by Mr. Amiya Kumar Basu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No allegation has been made against the official Trustee before me and paragraph 10 of the petition which contains such allegations against the Official Trustee are not pressed before me. The only point urged be- fore me is that the Official Trustee should be directed to transfer the trust properties held by him under the Deed of Trust to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 jointly. Mr. Basu placed Section 56 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and submitted that the Rule in Saunders v. Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115 = 10 LJ Ch 354 = (1841) Cr and Ph 240 should be applied in this case. He stated that as the beneficiaries arc sui juris and are ultimately entitled to the income they could require the trustee at once to convey the capital sum to them. He also stated that the petitioners will hold the trust properties in terms of the Deed of Trust. It is also submitted before me that all the persons who are now beneficially interested want that the Official Trustee should transfer the trust properties to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the Court should allow this prayer.
( 5 ) MR. Karuna Sankar Roy appearing for the Official Trustee of West Bengal referred to Clause (v) of the Deed of Trust dated March 12, 1945 and submitted that upon construction of Clause (v) the petitioners are not entitled to the order as prayed in prayer (a) of the petition.
( 6 ) THE question in this application is whether the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 can require the trustee to convey the trust properties to them.
( 7 ) SECTION 56 of the Indian Trusts Act. 1882 provides as follows:"the beneficiary is entitled to have the intention of the author of the trust specifically executed to the extent of the beneficiary's interest; and where there is only one beneficiary and he is competent to contract, or where there are several beneficiaries and they are competent to contract and all of one mind, he or they may require the trustee to transfer the trust property to him or to such person as he or they may direct. "under this section the beneficiary who is competent to contract has the right to say that the intention of the settlor to the extent of the beneficiary's particular interest should be specifically enforced and where there is only one beneficiary and he is competent to contract and where there are several beneficiaries an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
