Back
2001 Supreme(Cal) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ.
Samitendra Narayan Dutta & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Purnendra Narayan Dutta & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal No. 545 of 1999, A. P. O. T. No. 18 of 1999 & C. S. No. 269 of 1997
Decided on: May 3, 2001
In proceedings for originating summons, the court has a summary jurisdiction and can only decide questions that are not contentious and do not require oral evidence. Litigants seeking equitable remedies must adhere to the principle of uberrima fides and make full and candid disclosure of all material facts.
Headnote:
ORIGINATING SUMMONS - SCOPE - INTERPRETATION OF TRUST DEED - QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW - JURISDICTION - COURT'S SUMMARY JURISDICTION - CANDOUR AND DISCLOSURE - UBERRIMA FIDES - CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
A plaintiff-respondent, a trustee under a trust deed, sought to interpret the deed through an originating summons proceeding. Questions arose regarding the plaintiff's resignation from trusteeship, the validity of subsequent appointments, and the authority to appoint new trustees. The plaintiff had previously filed a suit in the City Civil Court seeking a declaration of his status as a trustee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the questions raised in the originating summons proceeding were not suitable for determination in such a summary proceeding. The issues involved intricate and mixed questions of fact and law that required oral evidence and a regular suit. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts by failing to disclose the pending suit in the City Civil Court, which amounted to a breach of the principle of uberrima fides.
Issues: 1. Whether the questions raised in the originating summons proceeding fell within the scope of the procedure relating to originating summons under Chapter XIII of the Original Side Rules of Calcutta High Court. 2. Whether the plaintiff had made a gross suppression of the fact that a suit was filed by him before the City Civil Court at Calcutta in which a declaration was prayed for about his status as a Trustee in respect of the same Trust Deed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on several precedents establishing that the procedure by originating summons is not applicable to contentious matters and that the jurisdiction of a judge in such proceedings is summary in nature. 2. The court found that the questions raised in the originating summons proceeding were intricate and mixed questions of fact and law that could not be resolved through a summary jurisdiction. 3. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to disclose the pending suit in the City Civil Court amounted to a breach of the principle of uberrima fides, which requires litigants seeking equitable remedies to make full and candid disclosure of all material facts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and held that the matter could not be decided within the scope of an originating summons proceeding, especially in light of the pending suit in the City Civil Court. The court also clarified that its decision would not affect the rights of the parties in the pending suit.
Ganguly, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 21st July, 1999 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby in a proceeding by way of Originating Summons a Trust Deed was sought to be interpreted by the learned Judge and certain questions have been answered. The material facts of the case are as follows ;-
One Pravabati Dasi, a Hindu Lady during her lifetime executed a Deed of Trust dated 11th March, 1952 whereby certain provisions have been made for the benefit of Shri Iswar Gopal Jew Deity located at Mazilpur Dutt House, P.S. Joynagar, District 24-Parganas (South). The said deity being the ancestral property of the lady, the said Settlor Smt. Pravabati Dasi granted, transferred and assigned premises No.3 B, Sarkar Lane, Calcutta-700 007 and inheritance thereof in fee simple in possession in the manner provided in the Trust Deed. The plaintiff-respondent was appointed a Trustee under the said Deed of Trust.
2. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent, thereafter, on 12th October, 1955 had written a letter to two other Trustees, namely, Smt. Bhagabati Dutta since deceased and Smt. Sushma Rani Dutta expressing his desire to retire from the Trusteeship of the said Trust. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the said letter of resignation was not served on the Settlor. However, it is also stated by the plaintiff-respondent in the petition for Originating Summons that on 1st October, 1956, he served a copy of the said letter dated 12th October, 1955 on the Settlor who received the same along with the letter dated 1st October, 1956. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the Settlor came to know of his desire of retiring from the Trusteeship but did not accept the resignation and orally asked him to continue. The further case of the plaintiff-respondent is that in August 1996, he came to know for the first time in a legal proceedings initiated by him in City Civil Court, Calcutta, that his father Sailendra Narayan Dutta, since deceased, had executed a Deed of Trust dated 4th June, 1958 whereby the said Sailendra Narayan Dutta, father of the plaintiff-respondent appointed some Trustees beyond the line of appointment as mentioned in the Deed of Trust.
3. In these facts, the following questions have been raised by the plaintiff-respondent before this Hon'ble Court in the proceeding for Originating Summons for an interpretation of Trust Deed. Those questions are set out hereinbelow :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has ceased to be a Trustee in view of the letter dated 12th October, 1955 addressed to the Trustees as stated in Paragraph 7 ?
(2) Whether my father Sailendra Narayan Dutta, since deceased had the right to appoint himself as a Trustee or by subsequent delegation to appoint somebody else not in conformity and/or in utter violation of the Deed of Trust dated 11th March, 1952 ?
(3) Whether the said Sailendra Narayan Dutta, since deceased was competent during his lifetime to appoint a new Trustee denying the provision of the Trust Deed and denying the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?
4. In the said proceedings for Originating Summons, numbered as O.S. Suit No. 269 of 1997, an affidavit was filed by the appellants raising various contentions. It was stated in the affidavit it was urged that the plaintiff. respondent was trying to harass the family members by initiating various civil and criminal proceedings against the appellants and a suit had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent being Title Suit No. 1856 of 1996 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta claiming a declaration that he is a Trustee of the said Trust Property. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the plaintiff-respondent has retired and relinquished the office of the Trustees in the year 1955 and at that time he was a bachelor and as such after his retirement, the father of the plaintiff Sri Sailendra Narayan Dutta, since deceased, ipso facto became the Trustee and duly appointed Smt. Bhagabati Dutta, since deceas
