Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The relevant provision of the trust deed dated 21st February 1848 can now conveniently be stated. They are as follows : Motilal conveyed to trustees a large number of immovable properties including "all that upper roomed brick built messuage, tenement, family dwelling house and Thacoorbari adjoining thereto" (No. 60 Colootollah St.) to have and to hold them to the uses upon the trusts and for the several interests and purposes therein expressed and declared and the trustees should demise and lease all or any part of the several properties except only the said family dwelling house and thakurbaree adjoining thereto at Colootollah which shall be reserved and kept and used for the residence of the wife and family of the said Motilal Seal and the rents and profits thereby derived in trust to pay, discharge and defray the several costs charges and expenses therein enumerated and "for the expenses of keeping up the worship of the family idol and the usual and established expense for poojahs" provided that if any son or grandson and great grandson should remove from the family house they should not carry with them any of the jewels furniture glass wares "nor shall they carry with them or be entitled to remove for any time the household God called Sreedhar" (plaintiff 1). In Schedule A of the deed provision is made for payment out of the income of the sums of Rs. 1000 for Durga Puja and Rs. 500 for Dolejatra annually at the family house. The above are short relevant abstracts from a very long and elaborate deed of trust.

20. Before the meaning and effect of the trust deed are examined, it is convenient to refer to the other documents upon which the plaintiffs rely as supporting the alleged trust.

20a. Motilal died in 1854; Kanailal, his fifth son, died in 1883 at which time he was the owner of and was occupying the dwelling house. It is not material, in the present suit, how this was accomplished. Kanailal's will dated 10th July 1883, states that the trust funds were in the hands of a receiver and it directed that, out of his private estate, his executors and heirs should have power to spend annually Rs. 6000 on the Durga Puja and Rs. 1500 on the Doljatra over and above the amounts received from the trust estate.

21. Kanailal's only son, Gopal, died in 1902 intestate and childless. Kumudini, his senior widow, applied for grant of letters of administration of his estate. The Suit No. 4 of 1902 was marked as a contentious cause in which Kumudini was the plaintiff and Noyan Manjuri, the junior widow, and one other were the defendants. An administrator pendente lite was appointed who was directed by order, dated 28-7-1903, inter alia, to pay to Kumudini Rs. 1500 per annum for the Doljatra festival and a like sum for the Durga Puja and to pay Rs. 50 monthly for the daily sheba of the family thakur. By another order in the same suit, dated 26-8-1904, the administrator was directed to pay each year to Kumudini Rs. 6000 for the Durga Puja and to put her in possession of the Pujar Dalan Court Yard and rooms used on that occasion.

27. The other documents upon which reliance is placed, Kanailal's will, affidavit of Pandit R. Banerjee, orders and decrees, make provision for payment of the expenses of the various religious ceremonies in the house but none makes reference to any part of the house in which a festival or ritual is to be performed except that the order dated 26-8-1904 required the administrator pendente lite to put Kumudini in possession of the Durga Dalan Court for the Durga Puja to be performed there. The affidavit of Pundit Banerjee goes no further than stating that the worship had always been performed in the house. If the thakurs, as beneficiaries, are entitled under the trust deed to the sole use and benefit of the thakurghar it could have been so stated.