Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Now to merits, for a proper appraisal of which, what is needed first and foremost is a clear understanding of the original deed of trust bearing date January 20, 1932, exhibit C, in so far as it is necessary for the point at issue: the point of the trustees' power to make a mortgage, in the litigation on hand. Here is an analysis of its terms with that end in view, and under suitable headings too;

A. By and between whom.

Modhoo Sooden Sain is of the one part, the first part. The said Modhoo Sooden Sain and his son Moti Lall Sain, the two trustees, are of the other part, the second part. There is the usual interpretation clause for the expression "trustees"--an expression which includes the survivor of them, executors, administrators, etc. B. What the trust deed conveys "irrevocably" by way of settlement, in so far as it is material for the purposes of the case on hand.

23. Let such rival contentions be examined in the light of variation of each of the two types of investment. Because, only for such purpose, that is to say, for periodic variation of each type of investment, the trustees have the power to enter into a mortgage of "116" and the property purchased with the trust-money. It am confining myself now to mortgage with which alone this litigation is concerned.]

24. Take first the investment of sale-proceeds of "116" in properties in and around Calcutta, in the event of the sale of "116" to Sreelal Chamaria being completed. The trustees have the power to vary, from time to time, such investment of the sale-proceeds of '116', in properties in and around Calcutta. For such purpose, that is, for such periodic variation, sure enough, "116" cannot be mortgaged by the trustees in whom "116" does not vest, so soon as the sale of "116" to Sreelal Chamaria is completed. "116" then vests in Sreelal Chamaria. The trustees can mortgage their property, not the property of another, the purchaser Chamaria. In this context, the words "for such purpose" appear to be unmeaning. It is, as Mr. Sen contends, a mistake, "patent and palpable", proving itself and needing no evidence.

28. XX xx xx XX XX XX Even on December 21, 1939, when Moti Lall retired as a trustee and nominated Nandarani as the sole trustee, by a deed of appointment, exhibit B, in the schedule thereto, the rent in his share of "116" was put as Rs. 160 a month since July 1937. If that is taken as the yardstick, the true intention on the part of the settlor not to put a clog on the powers of the trustees proves itself. Sure enough, with Rs. 160 a month, none of the imposing array of duties imposed upon the trustees can ever be performed, unless they know how to weld a magic wand. Yet let me stretch in favour of the plaintiffs to the breaking point and assume that the income from "116" was Rs. 1100 or Rs. 1200 a month.

56. To the original trust-deed again. It provides that the trust-estate shall be for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the settlor, his son Moti Lall. Moti Lall's family, other than his first wife Radharani, during the natural lives of the settlor. Moti Lall and Moti. Lall's second wife Nandarani.

"subject however, to the payment of ............ the costs of necessary repairs if any, that the trustees may in their absolute discretion may think fit and proper .............""

The trust-deed, therefore, preserves, in the clearest possible terms, the implied discretionary power which vests, as a matter of course, in every trustee--the power to do all necessary acts for protecting the trust-property, in which is included the power to take necessary steps for keeping the property in repair. Section 36 of the Trusts Act, 2 of 1882, provides as much too: