SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAL) 151

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO, J
THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF WEST BENGAL – Appellant
Versus
ANALYTICAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (P) LTD. AND ORS. – Respondent
AOT



Advocates:
Mr. Indranil Nandi, Adv., Mr. Sayak Konar, Adv., Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv., Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Parna Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Sabyasachi Sen, Adv., Mr. Rahul Goenka, Adv.

Modification of lease terms under the Official Trustees Act is permissible to ensure the financial viability of a Trust and the continuation of its religious activities.

Headnote:(A) Official Trustees Act, 1913 - Sections 25 and 26 - Modification of Deed of Lease - Application for modification of lease terms due to financial crisis of the Trust - Lease rent enhanced from Rs.15,400/- to Rs.21,000/- per month with a 10% increase every five years - Lease extended for another 99 years with a deposit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as corpus for the Trust. (Paras 7, 11, 12)

(B) Trust Law - The court emphasized the necessity of ensuring the financial viability of the Trust while modifying lease terms to benefit the Shebaits and maintain religious practices. (Paras 7, 11)

Facts of the case:
The application was made to modify the Deed of Lease dated 27th February, 2004 due to the financial difficulties faced by the Rup Chand Dhur Trust, which affected the performance of religious rites. The lessee agreed to enhance the lease rent and deposit a substantial amount for the Trust's corpus.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the modification of the lease terms, enhancing the rent and extending the lease period, ensuring the Trust's financial stability.

Issues: The main issues included the necessity of modifying the lease terms to address the Trust's financial crisis and the implications of the proposed changes on the Trust's operations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that modifications to the lease were justified to ensure the Trust's financial health and the continuation of its religious activities, emphasizing the importance of the Trust's welfare in judicial decisions.

Result: The application for modification of the Deed of Lease was allowed.

ORDER

1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913, for modification of the Deed of Lease dated 27th February, 2004 in terms of the Resolution of the Shebaits as per the proposal of the defendant no.1.

2. One Rup Chand Dhur published his last Will on 4th April, 1817 by appointing his brother, Gobind Chand Dhur as Sole Executor and Trustee thereof. By the said Will, Rup Chand Dhur created a Trust in respect of a sum of Rs.30,000/- for performance of certain rites and ceremonies and annual acts relating to certain family religious festivals i.e. Durga Puja, Dolyatra and worship of ‘Sri Iswar’. One Shib Chandra Mullick, the sole surviving male representative of Rup Chand Dhur filed a Bill of Complaint on 1st February, 1841 before the then Hon’ble Supreme Court for certain orders, whereupon by an order dated 25th November, 1842, it was declared that the Shib Chandra Mullick was entitled to perform the rites and ceremonies and by a decree dated 1st August, 1843 confirmed the Master’s report in the proceedings by directing the executor of the said bill, namely Gobind Chand Dhur to hold the said Trust fund as Trustee for the said Shib Chandra Mullick and pay money to him.

3. Shib Chandra Mullick lodged a further Bill of Complaint and by a decree made in the said case dated 3rd February, 1854, the then existing Trustees of the said Trust were removed and Shib Chandra Mullick was appointed as the Sole Trustee of the fund under the name and style “Rup Chand Dhur Trust”. Shib Chandra Mullick during his life time made and published his last Will on 3rd August, 1866. He died leaving behind his wife, Badam Kumari Dassi and son, Hrishikesh Mulliuck by his predeceased wife. By the said Will, Shib Chandra Mullick devised the rest and residue of his Estate to his Executor and Trustee as to a moiety for his son, Hrishikesh Mullick and the other moiety in Trust for the sole issue of Hrishikesh Mullick with the proviso that if Hrishikesh dies without any issue, then then said moiety be paid to the Trust and added to the Trust Fund known as Rup Chand Dhur Trust. The said Will was duly probated. In the Trust Deed dated 3rd August, 1866, the Administrator General of Bengal, Dwarka Nath Bhanja and Hrishikesh Mullick were appointed as Trustees. In the Trust Deed, it was directed that the Administrator General would hold the Trust Fund but pay the income of the Trust Fund to Dwarka and Hrishikesh for performing the rites and ceremonies mentioned in the Will of Rup Chand Dhur.

4. The Administrator General declined to act under the said declaration of Trust without sanction of the Hon’ble Court stating that Shib Chandra Mullick had no right to appoint New Trustees and the Administrator General was willing to act as Trustee, if appointed by this Court. Thereafter, Hrishikesh Mullick filed an application before this Court. By an order dated 25th June, 1867, this Court declared that Hrishikesh Mullick be appointed as Trustee of the Will of Rup Chand Dhur in place and stead of Shib Chandra Mullick and Official Trustee was appointed the Trustee of the property subject to the Deed of Trust dated 3rd August, 1866. It was also directed that the Official Trustee would pay from time to time the interest that would accrue due to the said fund for the purpose of Trust to Hrishikesh Mullick and Dwarka Nath Bhanja and duty and liability of the Official Trustee in reference to such interest would cease and determine with payment thereof to them.

5. Thereafter several litigations were filed before this Court and finally the Appellate Court by an order dated 6th January, 2004, passed the following order:

    “Admittedly, the appellant was not a party to the proceeding in the Contempt. Therefore, his interest was not taken into account by the Court and he was not given any opportunity of hearing.
    Admittedly the property was given on lease for 21 years with an option to renew for another 21 years which was supposed to be renewed at a rent of Rs.3,000/-

                                                                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                                          1
                                                                          2
                                                                          3
                                                                          4
                                                                          5
                                                                          6
                                                                          7
                                                                          8
                                                                          9
                                                                          10
                                                                          11
                                                                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                                          supreme today icon
                                                                          whatsapp-icon Back to top