CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Derbyshire, C.J, Panckridge, J.
Maharaj Bahadur Singh - Appellant
Versus
Taj Bahadur Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 13-03-1940
Trustee - Trust properties - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a co-trustee, alleges that the defendant, also a co-trustee, is not properly managing the trust properties, keeping no separate accounts, and not carrying out the objects of the trust. The defendant denies the allegations and claims the suit is vexatious.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's control over the trust properties without allowing the plaintiff access to accounts and knowledge of the affairs was not proper trustee behavior. The demurrer by the defendant was dismissed, and the plaintiff was granted inspection of the trust documents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant's control over the trust properties and refusal to allow the plaintiff access to accounts and information was justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if one trustee has complete control over the trust properties and denies access to the other trustee, it is not proper trustee behavior and should be determined in the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the matter of the plaintiff's alleged relinquishment of trusteeship was left open for determination at the trial of the suit.
JUDGMENT
Derbyshire, C.J. - The plaintiff and the defendant are co-trustees under a certain trust which is for the benefit of certain religious objects and also certain Jains. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant and he alleges that the defendant kept the trust properties under his own control. He also alleges that he is treating the properties as If they were his own, that he keeps no separate accounts, that he is not paying revenue and 6esses, is letting the trust properties get into disrepair, is not spending the money as the trust document directs, and not carrying out the objects of the trust. He also alleges that the defendant declines to let him take any part in the management or to furnish him with any information with regard to the affairs of the trust. He is claiming an account of the dealings of the defendant with the trust on the basis of wilful default and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to take part in the management and, if necessary a receiver.
2. The defendant denies these allegations and alleges that the suit is vexatious and is not maintainable. The defendant attempted a short cut by moving a demurer before Sen J. alleging that the suit was not maintainable and also that the plaintiff was not entitled to inspection of certain documents as had been ordered. Those documents are accounts of the trust properties. Sen J. dismissed the demurer and, moreover, made an order that the plaintiff should have inspection of the documents. This inspection has been given.
3. We are only concerned with the question whether the dismissal of the plea of demurer was correct. In my opinion, the decision of the learned Judge is correct. If, as is alleged, the defendant has the trust properties entirely under his control then he is not acting properly as a trustee. They should be under the joint control of both trustees. If he refuses to allow the plaintiff to have access to the accounts and refuses to give him knowledge of the affairs of the trust properties he is not enabling the plaintiff to act as a trustee. Those are matters which must be determined in the suit. In my opinion, the defendant's demurer was not substantiated and the decision of the learned Judge was correct. As regards the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff has disentitled himself to ask for a relief because of a relinquishment of his trusteeship since the commencement of this suit, the matter is left open to the parties to deal with in such manner as they think fit at the trial of the suit. I am of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Panckridge, J.
4. I agree.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.