Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

No more of the terms of the trust-deed bearing date January 20, 1932, need be noticed in order to understand the power of the trustees to make a mortgage, with which alone this litigation is concerned, and that too in the light of the deed of rectification, exhibit D, executed by the settlor, "with the consent and concurrence" of the "trustees" and "beneficiaries," as the rectification deed itself recites, some four years and five months later, to wit, on June 15, 1936. The position boils down to this:

14. Now to the deed of rectification bearing date June 15, 1936, some four years and five months after the trust-deed of January 20, 1932. A deed of rectification as this is by the same person Modhoo Sooden Sain. So, one who makes the deed of trust is the very one who rectifies it by the deed of rectification. What does such a one say as the reasons for rectification? The reasons he puts forward in the rectification deed itself are--

One, for the purpose of carrying out the directions (which included directions for payment of certain expenses out of the corpus of the trust-estate), and in particular, in the event of the agreement for sale to Sreelal Chamaria being "rescinded and cancelled", he considered it expedient and necessary, indeed he intended,

And they are so incorporated physically and so remain to this day, the deed of trust bearing date January 20, 1932, and the deed of rectification bearing date June 15, 1936, having been stitched together and thereby making one document to that extent.

17. This then is the deed of rectification which bulks so large in this litigation. What a deed as this is out to rectify cannot be clearer. The words "for such purpose" are words inserted in the parent deed through mistake. More, the words are words contrary to the intention of the settlor and to the tenor of the deed as well. Expunge them, and read the parent deed as if the words were never there. So, the deed of rectification is clarity Itself. That is not in dispute. What is In dispute is the power of the settlor to rectify the trust-settlement in the manner he has done. That has been debated before me.

In the case on hand, "the licenced pilots" ran Modhoo Sooden aground only on one shoal: the shoal of the "for such purpose" clause, which is self-defeating, not only because of the mistake, "patent and palpable", pointed out above (paragraphs 22-24 ante), but also because of a solemn trust being brought on the verge of ridicule and absurdity for reasons stated in the foregoing lines (paragraphs 25-32 ante). But soon enough, -- not even before the expiry of five years --, by when things remained as they were, with no vested rights to be defeated, Modhoo Sooden detected the mistake and cured it, luckily not running into a fresh mistake like the Walkers, and that too with "the consent and concurrence" of all concerned as testified to by the signatures of all to the rectification deed. In the Walker case, 1856 De G M & G 531, the mistakes were proved manifestly by evidence. Here also the solitary mistake is proved to demonstration, so to say, by the Internal evidence of the original trust-deed itself and the surrounding circumstances, strengthened so much the more by the rectification deed, the author thereof and of the trust-deed being one and the same person Modhoo Sooden who takes the precaution of having the consent and signatures of all concerned.