SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Cal) 369

High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SETH, RAJENDRA NATH SINHA
DULAL CHANDRA CHATTERJEE - Appellant
Versus
MONI MOHAN MUKHERJEE - Respondent
Appeal From Original Decree 573  Of  1978
Decided On : 06/09/2004

Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK BANERJI, KAPIL CHANDRA SAHOO, MRINAL KANTI ROY, S.C.SHRIVASTAVA, UDAY SHANKAR BHATTACHARYYA

A deed of family settlement, which is a valid disposition, can create interest and title in favor of the beneficiaries upon fulfillment of the conditions contained in the deed, and the conditions contained in the deed do not negate the intent and purpose of the settlement.

Headnote:

FAMILY SETTLEMENT - Interpretation - Divestiture of Interest and Vesting of Title - Conditional Divestiture - Creation of Trust - Effect of Conditions - Acceptance of Settlement.

Fact of the Case:

In a suit for partition, the question arose as to the interpretation of a deed of family settlement executed by the settlor in favor of the defendants. The settlor, Pulin Behari Mukherjee, had executed the deed in favor of his nephews, the defendants, who were brought up by him as his sons. The deed provided that the possession would be retained by the settlor as trustee after the divestiture of the interest of the settlor and vesting thereof unto the beneficiaries who would be in possession of the property after such divestiture through the settlor as trustee. During the lifetime of the settlor, the settlor would be entitled to the benefits of the usufruct of the property as well as the residence therein. The beneficiaries, who were residing with him, would continue to reside and would look after him and would do some acts as stipulated in the deed. The only right that was reserved as trustee by the settlor was the right to transfer only in case of necessity of the trust or in case of non-compliance of the conditions contained in the deed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the deed of family settlement had the effect of divestiture of interest and title of the settlor and vesting thereof in the beneficiaries. The court found that the conditions contained in the deed did not negate the intent and purpose of the settlement. The court also held that the retention of possession by the settlor as trustee did not affect the divestiture of the settlor's right and vesting of the right unto the beneficiaries subject however to the conditions of the deed. The limited and contingent right to transfer reserved by the settlor, which was never exercised, would not negative the intent of the deed.

Issues: 1. Whether there was immediate divestiture with the execution of the deed? 2. Whether the retention of control by the settlor were such as to lead the Court to hold that there was no divestiture in fact? 3. Whether conditional divestiture can be made? 4. Whether there could be a valid divestiture and vesting and simultaneous retention of possession with certain reservation of rights through creation of trust in a combined document? 5. The nature and scope of settlement and its effect.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The deed of family settlement was a valid disposition and created interest and title in favor of the beneficiaries upon fulfillment of the conditions contained in the deed. 2. The conditions contained in the deed did not negate the intent and purpose of the settlement. 3. The retention of possession by the settlor as trustee did not affect the divestiture of the settlor's right and vesting of the right unto the beneficiaries subject however to the conditions of the deed. 4. The limited and contingent right to transfer reserved by the settlor, which was never exercised, would not negative the intent of the deed.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree appealed against was set aside. The suit for partition was dismissed.

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) FACTS: This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Fifth Court at Alipore on June 12, 1978 in Title Suit No. 54 of 1974. "this suit was one for partition by the plaintiffs against defendants on the ground that the property belonged to one Pulin Behari Mukherjee, who happened to be the brother and uncle and granduncle respectively of the other plaintiffs. Pulin Behari got the property by inheritance as well as through self-acquisition. It was alleged that the properties were joint and that the defendant nos. 1 and 2, who are the sons of the sister of Pulin Behari, threatened their right, title and interest in the property and that the other co-sharers refused to effect partition. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 whereas the other defendants supported the case of the plaintiffs but did not contest the suit though filed their written statements. The parties went to trial and adduced evidences. Question/issues to be decided :"

( 2 ) IT appears that the facts are more or less admitted. The only question that falls for our consideration is as to the interpretation of the character of the deed of family settlement, as described by the settlor Pulin Behari, in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2; viz. whether the said document has the effect of divestiture of interest and title of the settlor and vesting thereof in the beneficiaries; or in other words, whether by reason of the conditions contained in the document there was any restriction on the right of the beneficiaries or of the settlor which could, otherwise, negative the intent and purpose of the deed of settlement. Both Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents had pointed out that the question of law with regard to the interpretation of the document is the only question which the court is supposed to answer. On facts, there seems to be no dispute. "in order to appreciate the situation, we are to examine in the context of the present case (1) whether there was immediate divestiture with the execution of the deed; (2) whether the retention of control by the settlor were such as to lead the Court to hold that there was no divestiture in fact; (3) whether conditional divestiture can be made; (4) whether there could be a valid divestiture and vesting and simultaneous retention of possession with certain reservation of rights through creation of trust in a combined document; (5) the nature and scope of settlement and its effect. Submission of the respective counsel"

( 3 ) MR, Roy Chowdhury and Mr. Banerjee had drawn our attention to the deed itself and the conditions contained therein and had pointed out in support of their respective contentions that either the document itself is, in fact, a deed of gift or family settlement, as the case may be, protected under sections 122, 123, 126 and 197 of the Transfer of Property Act being a deed of settlement as defined in section 2 (24) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act or, according to Mr. Banerjee, it is neither a deed of gift nor a deed of settlement nor any other kind of deed which had the effect of divestiture of title or interest of the settlor immediately in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. According to Mr. Banerjee, there was no divestiture of or any vesting of the interest in the respective parties. Whether there was any divestiture of interest of the settlor :

( 4 ) THIS question can be answered only on the basis of the deed itself having regard to the conduct of the parties. In fact, the deed had pointed out that the settlor was interested in protecting the welfare of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were brought up as his sons on account of certain circumstances with regard to the conditions of the parents of the said defendants and ultimate death of the said parents within a short while. Out of natural love and affection, the t








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top