Crux:
Powers under Chapter. 13 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court.
Bench:
Hon’ble Hegde, K.S., Hon’ble Sikri, S.M., Hon’ble Bachawat, R.S.
Appellant:
Official Trustee
Respondent:
Sachindra Nath
Issue
- Whether the power reserved by the settlor in the original Trust deed for altering the quantum of interest of the beneficiaries “by will alone and by no other means” was irrevocable?
- Whether Justice Ramfry had "jurisdiction" to entertain the application made by the settler?
Facts
- Aswini Kumar Chatterjee (deceased) executed a Trust deed in respect of some of the properties owned by him.
- It is provided therein that the settlor would be the Trustee of his Trust estate and would enjoy the income and profits of the Trust properties during his lifetime.
- After his death, his wife and/or his sons, as soon as they or any of them attain the age of majority, should become the sole Trustee or Joint Trustees.
- From and after his death, the said Trust should be held to the use and for the benefit of the said wife and the sons. She was to be paid from the income and the profits of the aforementioned estate.
- The balance of the income and profits of the Trust Estate should be held for the use and benefit of each of the sons in equal shares after the death of the wife.
Appellant’s contentions
- The plaintiff pleaded that Ramfry, J. had jurisdiction over the parties to the application in question as well as on the subject matter. Thus, the validity cannot be challenged.
Respondent’s contentions
- It was then contended that Ramfry, J. had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question.
- It was further contended that not only did Ramfry, J. pass an illegal jurisdiction, but he had no jurisdiction in the first place.
Final Decision
It was held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to his costs in all the courts but he shall get the same from the Trust Estate. Moreover, the term “Jurisdiction” was also defined, by relying on the case of Hirday Nath Roy v. Ramachandra Barna Sarma, as the power of a Court to hear & determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it. Before a court can be held to have jurisdiction to try the suit brought but must also have the authority to pass the orders sought for. It isn’t sufficient that the court had some jurisdiction in relation to the subject-matter of the suit. Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the questions at issue, the authority to hear and decide the particular controversy that had arisen between the parties. It was held that the court had no jurisdiction to pronounce on pleas put forward by the settlor and grant the relief asked for as it didn’t come under the ambit of S. 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
