Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) This is an application under sections 34 and 49 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The petitioner is one of the trustees for one Mutty Lal Seal, the author of the trust. Regarding management of the trust properties, he has taken out this application, alleging that the discretionary power conferred on the trustees has not been exercised reasonably and in good faith.
(2.) A resolution adopted by majority of the trustees in the meeting held on February 17th, 2006 has made him aggrieved. By that a tenancy was created with respect to certain portion of premises No. 48, N.S. Bose Road, Kolkata (admittedly a trust property). The meeting was held in terms of a notice for that issued by the manager of the estate on February 14th, 2006. In that an item on the agenda was, "To discuss on the repairs of premises No. 48,. N.S. Road and on M/s. A.K. Bhar". In the resolution the petitioner's objection was noted. The case of the petitioner is that by issuing a tricky notice without indicating what would be the nature of the discussion, the majority of the trustees adopted an unfair and unreasonable resolution creating a new tenancy. Counsel has contended that without giving sufficient notice regarding the nature of the proposed discussion, the trustees ought not to have taken the unconscionable resolution that was bound to affect the interests of the beneficiary.
(3.) He has cited to me the decisions in Bimal Singh Kothari & Anr. v. Moir Mills & Ors., AIR 1952 Calcutta 645 , and Smt. Claude - Lila Parulekar v. Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 124 Comp Cas 685 (SC) , in support of his contention that a tricky notice, not indicating the subject matter to be discussed in the meeting, incurably vitiates the resolution adopted in the meeting. He prays for an order quashing the resolution. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the trustees not to incur expenses for any sum exceeding rupees ten thousand without adopting appropriate resolution for that in a meeting of the trustees. The application is contested by the second, third, fifth, sixth and ninth respondents, who are admittedly five of the ten trustees. Their counsel submits that though in the notice details of the subject matter to be discussed were not mentioned, the petitioner, who participated in the meeting, had full knowledge that the persons in whose favour the tenancy was created had been illegally put into possession of the property in question by the previous tenant, one M/s. A.K. Bhar & Co.;