SAMITENDRA NARAYAN DUTTA & ORS. Vs. PURNENDRA NARAYAN DUTTA & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2001-5-71
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 03,2001

SAMITENDRA NARAYAN DUTTA And ORS. Appellant
VERSUS
PURNENDRA NARAYAN DUTTA And ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 21st July, 1999 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby in a proceeding by way of Originating Summons a Trust Deed was sought to be interpreted by the learned Judge and certain questions have been answered. The material facts of the case are as follows:- One Pravabati Dasi, A Hindu Lady during her lifetime executed a Deed of Trust dated 11th March, 1952 whereby certain provisions have been made for the benefit of Shri Shri Iswar Gopal Jew Deity located at Mazilpur Dutt House, P.S. Joynagar, District 24-Parganas (South). The said deity being the ancestral property of the lady, the said Settlor Smt. Pravabati Dasi granted, transferred and assigned premises No. 3B, Sarkar Lane, Calcutta- 700 007 and inheritance thereof in fee simple in possession in the manner provided in the Trust Deed. The plaintiff-respondent was appointed a Trustee under the said Deed of Trust.
(2.) Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent, thereafter, on 12th October, 1955 had written a letter to two other Trustees, namely, Smt. Bhagabati Dutta since deceased and Smt. Sushma Rani Dutta expressing his desire to retire from the Trusteeship of the said Trust. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the said letter of resignation was not served on the Settlor. However, it is also stated by the plaintiff-respondent in the petition for Originating Summons that on 1st October, 1956, he served a copy of the said letter dated 12th October, 1955 on the Settlor who received the same along with the letter dated 1st October, 1956. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the Settlor came to know of his desire of retiring from the Trusteeship but did not accept the resignation and orally asked him to continue. The further case of the plaintiff-respondent is that in August 1996, he came to know for the first time in a legal proceedings initiated by him in City Civil Court, Calcutta, that his father Sailendra Narayan Dutta, since deceased, had executed a Deed of Trust dated 4th June, 1958 whereby the said Sailendra Narayan Dutta, father of the plaintiff-respondent appointed some Trustees beyond the line of appointment as mentioned in the Deed of Trust.
(3.) In these facts, the following questions have been raised by the plaintiff-respondent before this Hon'ble Court in the proceeding for Originating Summons for an interpretation of Trust Deed. Those questions are set out hereinbelow:- (1) Whether the plaintiff has ceased to be a Trustee in view of the letter dated 12th October, 1955 addressed to the Trustees as stated in Paragraph 7 ? (2) Whether my father Sailendra Narayan Dutta, since deceased had the right to appoint himself as a Trustee or by subsequent delegation to appoint somebody else not in conformity and/or in utter violation of the Deed of Trust dated 11th March, 1952 ? (3) Whether the said Sailendra Narayan Dutta, since deceased was competent during his lifetime to appoint a new Trustee denying the provision of the Trust Deed and denying the provision of Hind succession Act, 1956 ? ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.