Calcutta High Court
Hem Prakash Surana vs Abhay Singh Surana & Ors on 27 June, 2016
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA 518 of 2013
With
CS 48 of 2013
GA 113 of 2016
GA 1978 of 2013
GA 2293 of 2013
GA 2474 of 2013
GA 2785 of 2013
GA 615 of 2013
GA 850 of 2016
HEM PRAKASH SURANA
Versus
ABHAY SINGH SURANA & ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 27th June, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Anirban Ray, Adv.
Mr. S. Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Kundu, Adv.
...for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv.
Mr. R. Sarkar, Adv.
...for the defendant no.1.
Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv.
Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv.
...for the defendant no.2.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. D. Pal, Adv.
...for the defendant no.5.2
Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv.
Mr. Swaraj Shaw, Adv.
...for the defendant no.4.
Mr. Soumitra Mukherjee, Adv.
...Special Officer.
The Court : Mr. Sen, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the applicant in GA 113 of 2016. He submits, his client is the added defendant no.4, one of the beneficiaries of the trust. According to him, the suit being for declaration of revocation of the trust, is barred as such a claim requires fulfilment of the ingredients provided for in seeking revocation of trust under section 78 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Hence, this application for adjudication of a preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by law for the time being in force.
A trust was settled by deed dated 20th July, 1966. The applicant is one of the great grandsons of the settlor. The defendant nos.1 and 2 are the trustees. Two sons of the defendant no.2 are the initial beneficiaries under the trust. Upon certain contingencies being fulfilled, the great grandsons become beneficiaries. Mr. Sen submits, the contingencies have been fulfilled and his client is now a beneficiary under the trust who has not given his consent to its revocation. 3
Mr. Mainak Bose, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the defendant no.2(trustee) and submits, his client supports the plaintiff in his claim for declaration of revocation of trust.
Mr. Sayantan Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 (trustee) submits, his client supports the applicant.
Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.5 files affidavit-in-opposition upon copy served.
One of the contingencies provided for in the trust deed is that the trustees may, by their majority decision, hand over the trust money and properties to the first beneficiaries being the plaintiff and the defendant no.5. It is the submission of Mr. Sen that there has been no such decision. That the trustees have taken differing positions has already been recorded.
This Court requires satisfaction from the applicant that in the circumstances the applicant can be said to be a beneficiary under the trust for him to rely on the requirements under Section 78 of the said Act being fulfilled in carrying the objection to the maintainability of the suit.
List the suit along with the applications under the same heading on 5th July, 2016.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sp2.