JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 2 directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge decreeing the plaintiffs claim that the properties in suit are trust properties and that Defendant Bank be restrained from getting possession thereof or from interfering with the plaintiffs possession in any way and granting further consequential reliefs.

2. The plaintiffs case is that premises No. 21/A/1 and 21/A/2, Satis Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, belonged to the estate of Upendra Lal Banerjee who had during his life-time executed a Deed of Family Settlement in May 1933. It is alleged that under that deed the properties in suit vested in the third son of the settlor, Dhirendranath Banerjee who is defendant 3 in the present suit and for his life only. The property had so vested subject to the rights of maintenance and residence of the settlors surviving daughters and the children. Plaintiff 1 is the wife of defendant 3 and plaintiffs 2-11 are either the minor sons and daughters or the daughters and daughters sons of the settlor. The plaintiffs allege that they have come to know that defendant 3 had been adjudged an insolvent and that defendant 1 the Official Receiver, 24-Parganas was about to sell the interest of defendant 3 in the properties in suit to defendant 2, Jubilee Bank Limited, which is the appellant before this Court. It was inter alia maintained that defendant 3 was merely a trustee, had no saleable interest in the properties and the plaintiffs having the right of beneficial enjoyment thereof defendants 1 and 2 should be restrained from so (sic). There had been a further prayee foe the issue of a perpetual injunction to restrain defendant 1 from completing the same. But after the filing of the suit and when the temporary injunction was not in force the conveyance evidencing the sale was executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 on 9th June 1945.

3. Defendant 2 alleged that the suit was a collusive one, defendant 3 was not a trustee but a full owner of the properties. The plaintiffs were not entitled in law to be maintained out of the income of the properties and that the Defendant Bank was a bond fide purchaser for value and entitled to possession. Defendant 3 supported the plaintiff company (sic).

4. On an interpretation of the deed of Family Settlement the Munsif same to the conclusion that the settlor had intended the trust to come to an end on his death. Defendant 3 was found to have a life interest and the same was a saleable one. Further, the plaintiffs were not entitled to be maintained oat of the income of the suit properties and that had no locus standi to maintain the present suit which was accordingly dismissed.

5. On an appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Subordinate Judge held that defendant 3 had not an interest which was a saleable one and the transfer by the Official Receiver was neither legal nor valid. The direction contained in the deed about the maintenance and for the residence of some of the relations was not of a re-commendatory nature and that thereby a charge had been created over tin properties in suit in favour of those persons. He also accepted a further contention on behalf of the plaintiffs that after an absolute discharge of the insolvent defendant 3, the Official Receiver had no jurisdiction to effect the sale. This specific point though not raised in the trial Court was allowed to be agitated at the appellate stage. The Court found that the order of absolute discharge had the effect of giving a full release to the insolvent from all debts and liabilities and the authority of the Official Receiver ceased from the time of the discharge. A transfer, if any, purported to have been made after the discharge of the insolvent was without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs were found to have locus standi to maintain the Suit. The suit was decreed against the Bank defendant 2, it being restrained from getting possession of the premises or from interfering with the plaintiffs possession

Click Here to Read the rest of this document