IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the trust deed clauses, particularly Clause 13.05(C), regarding the succession to the office of Settler and Chairman, and the court's decision to uphold the rights of the first wife as per the trust deed.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated July 31, 2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Uluberia. By the order impugned, the learned Court allowed Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2022. The order dated August 20, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Uluberia, in Title Suit No. 405 of 2016, was set aside by the appellate court. The application for temporary injunction filed by the opposite party was allowed. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3, i.e. the petitioners herein were restrained from interfering with or disturbing the day to day affairs of the management of the Bagnan Teachers Training College (hereinafter referred to as the college), till the disposal of the suit.

2. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the order impugned, on the following grounds:

(a) The learned Court wrongly applied the doctrine of cypress although the intention of the Settler, Late Dr. Amanullah with regard to successorship to the office of the Settler and discharge of such duties, was in favour of his wife. The succession to the office of Chairman by the petitioner no. 1, which was a term used co-terminously with the term Settler in the trust deed, was clearly mentioned in Clause 13.05(C) of the Trust Deed.

(b) The Court came to an incorrect finding that conflicts in the provisions of the Trust Deed made it impossible to give effect to the clause relating to successorship and devolution of office of Settler on the petitioner No. 1.

(c) The Settler’s intention was clear, i.e. in the event of the Settler’s death and in the absence of a nominee, the law of succession would follow and without prejudice the first wife would be the next Settler. In the absence of any conflict with regard to the intention of the Settler and in the presence of a specific provision as to how the successorship would devolve, the learned appellate Court ought not to have applied the doctrine of cypress. It was not the duty of the Court to make the trust deed workable in disregard to the specific clause.

(d) The Court made an arrangement with regard to the management and control of the college, which was an unit of the trust. This was contrary to the desire of the Settler and the covenant in the trust deed.

(e) The suit itself was not maintainable at the instance of Ataur Rahman, who was a rank outsider. Ataur could not have been appointed as a Chairman, contrary to the intention of the Settler and in violation of the Trust Deed dated September 26, 2006.

(f) Dr. Amanullah had purchased the suit property by two deeds dated July 3, 2008 and June 20, 2008. The finally published record of rights stood in his name. Dr. Amanullah created the trust known as Dr. Mohammad Amanullah Foundation and he was the Settler, that is, the creator and founder trustee of the trust. The expression “Settler” included Dr. Amanullah, his heirs, successors, surviours, nominees, administrator, executor etc. His widow Shabnam Aman, the petitioner No. 1 was entitled to succeed to the office of the Settler with all the rights and obligations in respect of the foundation and the concerned institutions under it. Ataur Rahman was illegally appointed as the Chairman of the trust, by a deed dated August 12, 2016, upon the demise of the original Settler Dr. Amanullah, by the surviving trustees.

(g) Abdul Jabbar, Md. Feroz and Md. Nasibur Rahman, the Honorary Chairman, Managing Trustee and Trustee of the foundation respectively, together executed the new deed of appointment of trustees in 2016. Ataur Rahman was appointed as the Chairman and Md. Mahtab Alam, Sk. Sadikul Islam and Md. Irafan were appointed as trustees. Induction of Ataur Rahman and the other trustees were contrary to the trust deed. The trust deed of September 26, 2006 had laid down the procedure for appointment of new trustees. Without approval of the Chairman, the surviving trustees could not induct new trustee