Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1238
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
Pradyut Kumar Saha – Plaintiff
Versus
Soumen Shaw and Others – Defendants
CS No. 394 of 1999
Decided On : 27-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : Utpal Bose, Suparna Mukherjee, Arup Nath Bhattcharya, Sayani Das, Sreetama Biswas.
For the Defendants : Malay Kr. Ghosh, Aniruddha Mitra, Anirban Ghosh.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that complex trust disputes require resolution through regular civil suits rather than summary proceedings under Chapter XIII of the Original Side Rules.
Headnote:
Trust - Originating Summons - Chapter XIII of the Original Side Rules - The court held that the issues involved in the trust deed interpretation and claims were too complex for summary proceedings, necessitating a regular civil suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and defendant are family members disputing the validity and administration of a trust created by their ancestor. The trust deed allegedly violates the rule against perpetuity, leading to conflicting claims over the trust property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues raised were complex and could not be resolved through summary proceedings under Chapter XIII, necessitating a referral to a regular civil suit for proper adjudication.
Issues: Whether the trust created by the deed is valid or void due to the rule against perpetuity, and whether the plaintiff can claim absolute interest in the trust property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the intricate questions of fact and law involved in the case could not be adequately addressed in a summary manner, thus dismissing the originating summons.
Result: The Originating Summons Suit is dismissed, and parties are advised to pursue a regular civil suit.
JUDGMENT :
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
1. Two suits were taken up together for hearing. The first one is CS 394 of 1999 and the other one is Extra Ordinary Suit 12 of 2003. CS 394 of 1999 was renumbered as C.S.O.S 394 of 1999 which is basically an application under Chapter XIII of the Rules of the High at Calcutta (Original Side) 1914. In terms of the Order dated 12th July, 2003 this Court directed that the Originating Summons Suit, namely, C.S.O.S/394/1999 (CS/394/1999) should be heard prior to of E.O.S./12/2003, since outcome of the former will have a direct bearing on the letter. Accordingly, CS/394/1999 was heard and reserved for judgment.
2. CS 394 of 1999 was filed under Chapter XIII of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side) 1914 (in short ‘Original Side Rules’).
3. Sum and substance of the case of the Plaintiff is:
“(a) One Gopeswar Shaw had three sons, Karuna Mohan Shaw, Sailendra Mohan Shaw and Judhistir Mohan Shaw. The Plaintiff as well as the Defendant No. 2 to 6 are sons and daughters of Karuna Mohan Shaw. Sailendra Mohan Shaw was a bachelor. The Defendant No. 1 is the son of Judhistir Mohan Shaw. Until 19th September, 1955, Karuna Mohan Shaw was the sole and absolute owner of the premises no. 135A and 135B, Vivekananda Road, Calcutta. By an indenture dated 20th September, 1955, Karuna Mohan Shaw, since deceased, settled the said property on trust primarily for his own benefit and for the benefit of his two brothers, namely, Sailendra Mohan Shaw and Judhistir Mohan Shaw. The trust deed contained various terms and conditions and made provisions for administration and management of the said property.
(b) The grandfather of the Plaintiff Gopeswar Mohan Shaw died on 7th January, 1960. On 8th June, 1971, Judhistir Mohan Shaw expired living behind him is only surviving son, the Defendant No. 1 herein. Thereafter, on 24th November, 1979, the father of the Plaintiff expired as widower living behind the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 2 to 6 as legal heirs and representatives. Thereafter, Sailendra Mohan Shaw died bachelor on 31st July, 1982 living a will become all his properties to the son of the Plaintiff Saugato Shaw. Since death of Sailendra Mohan Shaw the present Plaintiff became sole trustee of the trust being so appointed on the same day of death of Sailendra Mohan Shaw, namely, 31st July, 1982, in accordance with the deed of trust.
(c) In terms of Clause 23 of the deed of trust, the trust is irrevocable. Trust properties are partly tenanted. A sum of Rs.534.50 p. per month was realized from the trust property by way of rent. Because of objection raised by the Defendant No. 1 tenants are not paying rent. Meagre income from the trust property made it very difficult to manage and administer the same and to pay the outgoing.
(d) The Defendant No. 1 had filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, which was registered as Title Suit No. 2937 of 1997 claiming a portion of the trust property. There are conflicting claims in respect of the trust property. Clause 19 of the deed of trust provides that beneficial interest of the trust property shall be in perpetual succession only to the male successors. It is contended that the trust was not validly constituted being hit by the rule against perpetuity and is, therefore, void. It is contended that Karuna Mohan Shaw, since deceased, the father of the Plaintiff was the sole and absolute owner of the trust property. On death of the said Karuna Mohan Shaw, since deceased, the Plaintiff no. 1 and 2 to 6 the succeeded to the trust property and are the present owner. It is stated that the Defendant No. 1 is not even the beneficiary of the trust.
(e) It is alternatively pleaded that on the footing that trust was validly created the same did not come to an end on death of Sailendra Mohan Shaw in the year 1982 and is still valid and subsisting. It is also pleaded that neither the three beneficiaries named in Clause 1 of the deed of trust nor their sons had or has any beneficial int
