Back
1930 Supreme(Cal) 106
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Panckridge, J.
Sewdayal Ramjeedas - Appellant
Versus
Official Trustee of Bengal - Respondent
Decided On : 15-08-1930
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the rule against perpetuities, the vesting of interests, and the exemption of Hindus from certain provisions of the T.P. Act, 1882, in the context of trust deeds executed for the benefit of Hindu family members.
Headnote:
Trust Deeds - Hindu Law - T.P. Act, 1882 - Sections 14, 15 - The court discussed the applicability of the rule against perpetuities and the exemption of Hindus from Section 15 of the T.P. Act, 1882, in the context of trust deeds executed by a Hindu settlor for the benefit of his family members. The court also considered the vesting of interests and the operation of the exception under Section 21 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The originating summons concerned trust deeds executed by a Hindu settlor for the benefit of his family members. The plaintiff firm claimed an interest in the trust estate based on promissory notes executed by the settlor. The defendants contested the validity of the monthly payments and dispositions in the trust deeds, invoking the rule against perpetuities and the exemption of Hindus from Section 15 of the T.P. Act, 1882.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no resulting trust in favor of the settlor's estate and that the defendants were not holding the estates on behalf of the settlor's heirs. It found that the monthly payments to the daughters were invalid under Sections 14 and 13 of the T.P. Act, 1882, and that the sons obtained vested interests in the trust fund upon the death of the settlor, subject to being divested if they died before attaining the age of 21.
Issues: The issues involved the construction of the trust deeds, the validity of the monthly payments, the vesting of interests, and the applicability of the rule against perpetuities and Section 15 of the T.P. Act, 1882, to Hindu beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the language of the trust deeds, the provisions of Sections 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the T.P. Act, 1882, and the historical development of Hindu law regarding gifts to unborn persons. It considered the burden of proving a contrary intention under Section 19 and the operation of the exception under Section 21 in determining the vesting of interests.
Final Decision: The court held that there was no resulting trust in favor of the settlor's estate and that the defendants were not holding the estates on behalf of the settlor's heirs. It found that the monthly payments to the daughters were invalid under Sections 14 and 13 of the T.P. Act, 1882, and that the sons obtained vested interests in the trust fund upon the death of the settlor, subject to being divested if they died before attaining the age of 21. The plaintiff firm was ordered to pay the costs of all the defendants, and the official trustee was entitled to recover his costs from the trust property.
JUDGMENT
Panckridge, J. - This originating summons was filed on 8th March of this year. It is taken out by Sewdayal Eamjeedas, described as a firm carrying on business in copartnership or coparcenary as members of a joint Hindu Mitaksbara family at No. 130, Machuabazar Street. Originally the only defendant was the Official Trustee of Bengal, who is now sole trustee of three deeds of trust executed by a settlor of the name of Chandicharan Das, who died intestate on 19th July 1928, leaving him surviving his widow Sm. Sarengabala Dasi, two minor sons, and a minor married daughter.
2. The deeds of trust are dated 27th April 1921, 10th May 1924 and 20th December 1926. The deed of 27th April 1921, gives a life interest to the settlor and directs that after his death the trustee or trustees for the time being shall, after paying Rs. 20 a month to the daughter or each of the daughters of the settlor for their lives from the date of their marriage, pay the balance of the income to the widow for life for the maintenance of herself and her children, and thereafter hold the trust fund for the use and benefit of the son or sons, of the settlor, if more than one, in equal shares, to be made over to him or them on the attainment by him or them of the ago of 21 years, with power in the meantime to the trustee or trustees to spend such sum or sums out of the income for the maintenance, education, advancement or benefit of such son or sons as the trustee or trustees shall think fit, and accumulate the balance (if any) to form part of the corpus to be dealt with as thereinbefore directed. This is followed by a power to the settlor to vary by will subject to certain limitations.
3. The deed of 10th May 1924, also gives a life interest in the trust fund to the settlor and directs the trustee, after making provision for a monthly payment of Rs. 30 to the widow for life, to hold the rest of the trust estate, moveable or immovable, for the use and benefit of the son or sons of the settlor. The language of the first trust deed, as to the interest of such son or sons, is repeated. There then follows a proviso that in case of failure of issue in the direct male line of the settlor and, in default of any disposition by will by the settlor, the trust estate shall be applied in the founding of beds in a recognized hospital or towards some similar charitable object.
4. A power to vary by will similar to that in the first trust deed follows. The provisions of the deed of 20th December 1926, are similar to those of the deed of 10th May 1924. I am informed that the trust funds covered by the deeds of 1921 and 1924 have almost or entirely disappeared, and that the important fund is that covered by the deed of 1926. It is admitted that among the immovable properties covered by the deed of 1926 is one situated outside the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Court.
5. The plaintiff firm claim to be interested in the trust estate in the following way. They are the payees of two promissory notes executed by the settlor on 27th January 1927 and 15th November 1927, for Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 2,000, respectively.
6. There has been no actual payment in respect of these notes, but, according to the plaintiff firm, there was an agreement with the settlor that the firm would be at liberty to appropriate the rent of the Strand Bank Press, premises of which the firm wore tenants and the settlor part owner, against the amount due on the notes. Such appropriations were made during the settlor's lifetime, but the official trustee maintains that this arrangement ceased to operate after the settlor's death, when his interest in the premises came to an end. This dispute is the subject of a separate suit instituted by the official trustee and there is also a prior originating summons taken out by the official trustee for construction of the three deeds of trust.
7. Broadly, the points at issue on the merits are these. The plaintiff firm maintain that the monthly pay
