The majority decision of trustees prevails over the dissenting trustee, and the dissenting trustee is bound by the terms of the trust deed.

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The matter has a chequered history. Shorn of unnecessary details, on February 21, 1887 a trust/settlement was created by one Raja Rajendra Mallick Bahadur by way of a Will, thereby dedicating several properties (including the present suit property) and creating a dubutter in the name of the deity Sree Sree Juggernath Jee, providing for performance of religious functions as well as charitable acts for the poor and less privileged from the funds of such trust.

2. The trustees of the said trust granted a lease in 1960 in favour of one Md. Ismail for a period of 21 years expiring on April 30, 1981. In or around August, 1970, Md. Ismail assigned the residue part of the lease to the defendant no. 1/opposite party no.4 by a deed of assignment.

3. The defendant no. 1/opposite party no. 4 instituted against the trustees/shebaits of the said trust a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 176 of 1981, seeking specific performance of an oral agreement dated August 16, 1980 whereby the trustees had agreed to extend and/or renew the lease for a further period of 70 years. The said suit was decreed ex parte, inter alia directing the trustees to execute and register a renewal lease in favour of opposite party no. 4 within 90 days.

4. Subsequently the trustees issued letters to the proposed lessee cancelling the agreement for lease dated April 29, 1981 and filed an application under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking to rescind the agreement for renewal of lease dated November 25, 1960 and recall and/or set aside the ex parte decree dated July 25, 1985 on the ground that the opposite party no. 4 had breached the agreement. The said application was allowed on contest on July 31, 1996. The opposite party no. 4 preferred against such order a first miscellaneous appeal bearing F.M.A. No. 37 of 1997 and moved an application in connection therewith for stay, which was disposed of by a conditional order of depositing Rs. 1 crore. A special leave petition was preferred against the said order by the opposite party no. 4-company and the Supreme Court, by its order dated March 10, 1997, reduced the amount and the same was paid by the opposite party no. 4.

5. The trustees also preferred against the order of this court a special leave petition which was dismissed with certain directions.

6. The opposite party no. 4-company accordingly levied execution and filed a draft deed. The trustees filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the draft lease deed filed by the opposite party no. 4 was fraudulent inasmuch as several clauses, which were not there in the original lease deed, were inserted therein. The application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2006. However, such prayer was turned down and the draft lease deed was registered on April 12, 2006.

7. Meanwhile, on October 8, 1994 the trustees obtained permission from this court for letting out the suit property to a third party. On an appeal against such order being preferred by the opposite party no. 4-company, a division bench of this court stayed the permission on condition of Rs. 50 lakhs being deposited, which was deposited accordingly.

8. A copy of the registered lease deed dated April 12, 2006 was obtained by the trustees allegedly in June, 2006. On April 9, 2009 the trustees, namely Kumar Mrigendro Mallick (since deceased), Kumar Purnendro Mallick (since deceased) and Kumar Dipendro Mallick instituted a suit, Title Suit No. 1229 of 2009 (later renumbered as Title Suit No. 8687 of 2014), praying inter alia for a declaration that the plaintiffs have a right to prevent the defendant form making any construction or claiming any right in respect of the suit property at premises no. 225 B, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata, beyond what was permitted by the lease dated November 25, 1960, for rectification of the lease executed and registered on April 12, 2006 to bring it in accordance with the re