Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1. The fact remains that no transfer of any of the properties or part thereof was ever effected by the settlor. This implies that the beneficiaries committed no fault in respect of the terms, which they were supposed to or obliged to perform. This leads us to presume that the deed was acted upon. Non-exercise of any right of ownership by the beneficiaries would, therefore, not stand in the way of holding that the deed was not acted upon or the possession was not given to the beneficiaries or that the deed was not effective simply because the settlor had retained possession. The deed itself clearly lays down that the settlor would possess the property as trustee on behalf of the beneficiaries in whom the rights stood vested. Therefore, the realization of rent or other acts by the settlor would be that of a trustee and not of an owner. Therefore, the condition laid down does not seem to affect the divestiture of the settlor's right and vesting of the right unto the beneficiaries subject however to the conditions of the deed. The limited and contingent right to transfer reserved by the settlor, which was never exercised, would not negative the intent of the deed. The intention was clear. The terms were unambiguous.

6.1. As we find, it was a kind of gift conveying the property in favour of the donee together with delivery of possession and acceptance thereof which took effect immediately with the execution of the deed. Simultaneously, with the delivery of possession and vesting of the interest in the donee when the acceptance was not in dispute or denied, a trust was created when the settlor possessed the property as trustee for the beneficiaries upon whom the property had vested. In between the creation of trust, the divestiture of the right of the settlor and vesting of the property in the beneficiaries was complete. The creation of the trust would not negate the same. As soon the trust was created, the rights reserved for the trustees were those of the trustees and would not affect the respective divestiture and vesting of the interest of the settlor and vesting unto the beneficiaries. The right exercised by the trustee was not in conflict with the right of the beneficiaries.

7.2. Mr. Banerjee then relied upon the decision in State of U, P. and Anr. v. Sayed Abdul Jalil, , in Order to contend that a document must be read as a whole. In a document meant for a transfer of ownership, the purpose is generally stated clearly to be that the property given would be owned and possessed henceforth by the donees in such a way that they could use it or deal with it as they liked. A mere allotment of accommodation or transfer of one's residence in another owned by the former would not constitute transfer of ownership. Transfer of ownership in the ordinary course if expected to be evidenced by much more clear and unequivocal language, the transaction would amount to nothing more than the grant of licence revocable at the option of the settlor and the right to reside in the house would continue so long as the grantor would allow the licensee to do so. In the absence of any declaration of gift by the donor, it could not amount to gift of the property. If it was a licence, it would come to an end on the death of the grantee. Relying on this decision, Mr. Banerjee contends that in the present case, there was no express gift and having regard to the nature of the document read as a whole, there was no clear indication of transfer since during the lifetime of the settlor, the beneficiaries' right was restricted and as such there was no transfer effected by virtue of the said deed except creating a licence.

7.6. A trust is an obligation as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 annexed to the ownership of the property arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared or accepted by him for the benefit of another or of another and the owner. The person who accepts the confidence is the trustee and who declares the trust is the author of the trust and the person for whose benefit the confidence is accepted is the beneficiary. Thus, the right of confidence accepted by the settlor would be governed by the principles of the Trusts Act. It is, in fact, a personal convenant or contract binding two parties with regard to inter-relations in between themselves. There is no conflict in between the divestiture of the settlor's interest and vesting thereof unto the beneficiary and then to hold the property in trust for and on behalf of the beneficiaries by the settlor. This combination of different kinds of disposition governed by different provisions of law has since been recognized by the Indian context, which is apparent from the definition of settlement given in the Stamp Act and recognition thereof as a valid disposition. Once a document comes within the purview of the definition of settlement, it definitely conveys title or interest within the scope and ambit of such definition and constitutes a valid disposition.