- (1.) This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 2 directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge decreeing the plaintiff's claim that the properties in suit are trust properties and that Defendant Bank be restrained from getting possession thereof or from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in any way and granting further consequential reliefs.
(2.) The plaintiff's case is that premises No. 21/A/1 and 21/A/2, Satis Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, belonged to the estate of Upendra Lal Banerjee who had during his life-time executed a Deed of Family Settlement in May 1933. It is alleged that under that deed the properties in suit vested in the third son of the settlor, Dhirendranath Banerjee who is defendant 3 in the present suit and for his life only. The property had so vested subject to the rights of maintenance and residence of the settlor's surviving daughters and their children. Plaintiff 1 is the wife of defendant 3 and plaintiffs 2-11 are either the minor sons and daughters or the daughters and daughters' sons of the settlor. The plaintiffs allege that they have come to know that defendant 3 had been adjudged an insolvent and that defendant 1 the Official Receiver, 24-Parganas was about to sell the interest of defendant 3 in the properties in suit to defendant 2, Jubilee Bank Limited, which is the appellant before this Court. It was inter alia maintained that defendant 3 was merely a trustee, had no saleable interest in the properties and the plaintiffs having the right of beneficial enjoyment thereof defendants 1 and 2 should be restrained from so (sic). There had been a further prayer for the issue of a perpetual injunction to restrain defendant 1 from completing the same. But after the filing of the suit and when the temporary injunction was not in force the conveyance evidencing the sale was executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 on 9th June 1945.
(3.) Defendant 2 alleged that the suit was a collusive one, defendant 3 was not a trustee but a full owner of the properties. The plaintiffs were not entitled in law to be maintained out of the income of the properties and that the Defendant Bank was a bona fide purchaser for value and entitled to possession. Defendant 3 supported the plaintiff company (sic).;