High Court Of Calcutta
Dilip Kumar 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
FAMILY SETTLEMENT - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT OF CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN THE SETTLEMENT: In a family settlement, the settlor transferred his property to the beneficiaries, retaining possession as trustee. The beneficiaries accepted the property and acted upon the settlement. The settlor reserved a limited and contingent right to transfer the property in case of necessity of the trust or non-compliance with the conditions of the deed, but this right was never exercised. Held, the settlement was valid and effective, and there was immediate divestiture of the settlor's interest and vesting thereof in the beneficiaries, subject to the conditions of the deed.
Fact of the Case:
The settlor, Pulin Behari Mukherjee, executed a deed of family settlement in favor of his nephews, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were the sons of his sister. The deed provided that the settlor would retain possession of the property as trustee for the beneficiaries, who would be entitled to the benefits of the usufruct and reside in the property. The settlor reserved the right to transfer the property only in case of necessity of the trust or in case of non-compliance with the conditions of the deed. The beneficiaries accepted the property and acted upon the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the settlement was valid and effective, and there was immediate divestiture of the settlor's interest and vesting thereof in the beneficiaries, subject to the conditions of the deed. The Court found that the settlor's retention of possession as trustee did not negate the divestiture, as the settlor's rights as trustee were not in conflict with the beneficiaries' rights. The Court also found that the settlor's reservation of a limited and contingent right to transfer the property did not affect the divestiture, as the right was never exercised and the beneficiaries did not commit any fault in respect of the terms they were supposed to perform.
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 Transfer of Property Act does not define settlement as a kind of transfer, but it is recognized in law as a mode of disposition of property. 2. A settlement combines various kinds of transfer in one transaction, including gift, exchange, and trust. 3. A settlement can be made in favor of persons other than the settlor's successors according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. The settlor's retention of possession as trustee does not negate the divestiture of the settlor's interest and vesting thereof in the beneficiaries. 5. The settlor's reservation of a limited and contingent right to transfer the property does not affect the divestiture, as long as the right is never exercised and the beneficiaries do not commit any fault in respect of the terms they were supposed to perform.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree appealed against was set aside, and the suit for partition was dismissed.
( 1 ) 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. 1. 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.
( 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. 1. 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. 2. 2. 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.
( 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 two sons of his sister were brought up by Pulin Behari as his own
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.