CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sanjib Banerjee, J.
Sumana Venkatesh Nee Sur —Petitioner
versus
Susanta Kumar Sur and Ors. —Respondents
CO No.875 of 2017
Decided on 19.4.2017
(1977) 4 SCC 467 – Referred
(b) Interpretation of deed – If an earlier clause followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant and the earlier clause would prevail – If the later clause does not destroy but only qualifies the earlier, then the two are to be read together and effect is to be given to the intention of the parties as disclosed by the deed as a whole. (Para 20)
(1922) 1 AC 256 – Referred
(c) Interpretation of deed – Settlement deed mandating the trust property to devolve on settler’s children from his first wife if the children from second wife dies unmarried or after marriage without an issue – Daughter from second marriage marrying and having a daughter who is also married – To interpret the relevant clause to imply that if the petitioner dies after her child has predeceased her would amount to adding words to the clause which would be impermissible. (Para 21)
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Suit instituted in 2014 after petitioner attaining majority – Trust property ought to have vested in her – No cause for the opposite party No.1 to espouse in respect of such property – Plaint ought to be rejected. (Para 22)
Result: Petition allowed.
Sanjib Banerjee, J.—The petitioner herein is the sole defendant in a suit relating to an immovable property. The petitioner questions of a propriety of an order dated February 10, 2017 by which the petitioner’s application for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed with costs.
2. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the plaint relating to the suit does not disclose any cause of action.
3. The petitioner is the daughter of one Purnanka Mohan Sur and his second wife, Renu Sur, both deceased. The petitioner is married and has a daughter, who also appears to be married. The opposite party No.1 herein is a son of the petitioner’s father through his first marriage. The opposite party No.1 has instituted Title Suit No.192 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Alipore, citing a deed of settlement to claim divers reliefs which are not necessary to be set out. The claim in the suit is that the opposite party No.1 herein has, under a registered deed of settlement of December 14, 1960 executed by Purnanka Mohan Sur, a valuable right in respect of a property now numbered as 46A, Garcha Road. The immediate purpose for which the suit was filed was to arrest the attempt by the petitioner herein to transfer or alienate the suit property. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded as proforma defendants in the suit. Such opposite parties are the wife and son, respectively, of a deceased uterine brother of the opposite party No.1.
4. The petitioner asserts that the alleged right claimed by the opposite party No.1 in the suit is non-existent and the same would be evident from a plain reading of the relevant deed of settlement. The petitioner maintains that under the relevant deed the suit property has absolutely vested in the petitioner and the circumstances in which the suit property could have passed on to the opposite party No.1 and his deceased brother are no longer possible. The petitioner submits that it was on the basis of a plain reading of the relevant deed that the petitioner applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the rejection of the plaint. The petitioner criticises the order impugned dated February 10, 2017 on the ground that the court below imagined a semblance of a cause of action where there was none.
5. It is necessary to notice the deed of settlement of December 14, 1960 and the relevant portion thereof which governs the rights of the parties herein. Under the said document, Purnanka Mohan Sur, as the settlor, created a trust of which he appointed himself the first trustee. The subject-matter of the trust was the property at 46, Garcha Road with a strip of land that the settlor purchased and amalgamated with premises No. 46, Garcha Road. There is no dispute that the original property and the strip of land subsequently acquired were later renumbered and the entirety of the property covered by the trust is now premises No. 46A, Garcha Road. The material part of the document reads as follows:
“ … AND from and after the death of the Settlor and his said wife Srimati Renu Sur IN TRUST for Srimati Sumana Sur the only daughter now living of the Settlor and his said wife Srimati Renu Sur absolutely and the Trustee shall transfer the Trust Premises to her PROVIDED THAT if any other child or children is or are born to the Settlor through his said wife Srimati Renu Sur and such child or children shall be living on that date then IN TURST for all such children including the said Srimati Sumana Sur absolutely in equal shares as tenants in common and the Trustee shall transfer the Trust Premises to them PROVIDED that if the said Srimati Sumana Sur remaining the only child of the Settlor and his said wife Srimati Renu Sur shall die during the life time of the Settlor or his said wife Srimati Renu Sur then the Trustee shall stand possessed of the Trust Premises in trust for the Settlor’s two sons Prosanta Kumar Sur and Susanta Kumar Sur through his fir
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.