Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In order, however, to see how this suit has arisen, it is necessary to go back a little in the family history. About the time of the execution of the lease, and possibly because of its execution, anxiety arose among the members of the family as to the way in which the affairs of the trust were being conducted, and in consequence a suit, to which reference has already been made, was instituted on the 31st May, 1910, by Sarat against Protap, as trustee, claiming to have the deed of trust declared void, charging Protap with misconduct as trustee, and asking for accounts against him. In the plaint this lease was challenged, though not on the ground now under consideration, The beneficiaries were made parties to the suit, and a settlement of the disputes was ultimately effected; but one of the parties being an infant, it was necessary to obtain the consent of the Court to the proposed terms. This was secured by a decree on the 2nd August, 1912, which declared that the general trusts of the deed were bad because the objects of the charity were far too indefinite, but the settlement of the litigation being approved by the learned Judge, his declaration was confined to the failure of the trusts, and to declaring that the properties that were the subject of the deed were merely charged with such necessary expenses as were incurred in the life-time of the lady for the maintenance and ownership of the sradh mentioned in the third clause, and the annual service mentioned in the fourth clause. The settlement released Protap from liability to recount for moneys received from the lease, but it appointed the second trustee in the order Sarat Chandra Ghosha, receiver of the estate, and express directions were reserved in these terms of settlement that he should be at liberty to take steps to recover and set aside the perpetual lease or leases granted by Protap.