[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Chayanendra Nath Dash vs Tapas Kumar Das And Ors on 16 December, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
2025:CHC-OS:256-DB
O-72
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PASSED IN ITS ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/57/2025
With ATA/3/2021
IA No. GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
CHAYANENDRA NATH DASH
-Vs-
TAPAS KUMAR DAS AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
-AND-
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
For the Appellant : Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms. Sumitra Das, Adv.
Ms. Sananda Chatterjee, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv.
Mr. P. Chandra, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ratul Das, Adv.
Mr. Anirudhya Dutta, Adv.
HEARD ON : 16.12.2025
DELIVERED ON : 16.12.2025
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. The appeal is at the behest of an applicant seeking to intervene in a
proceeding under Section 7 of The Charitable and Religious Trust Act,
1920.
2025:CHC-OS:256-DB
2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
appellant is a descendant of the Settlor. He refers to the Deed of
Settlement dated December 1, 1934. In particular, he draws the
attention of the Court to clauses 5(d) (9) and (10) thereof. He submits
that by virtue of such clauses, the appellant is a beneficiary of the
Trust. Consequently, the immovable property belonging to the Trust
which is sought to be sold by the respondent, could not be so done.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of
the Court to clause 7 of the Deed of Trust dated December 1, 1934. He
submits that, the appellant is entitled to be elected as a Managing
Trustee of the Trust if election is to be held in respect thereof.
Consequently, the immovable property should not be allowed to be
sold.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent draws the attention of
the Court to the submission made on behalf of the appellant and
recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated
June 19, 2025. He submits that, the appellant contended that the
trust in question is a private trust and that the purpose of the trust
being exhausted, the trust became extinct. In addition thereto, learned
advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the trust put up
another immovable property for sale. The appellant was an occupant
of a portion of such property. Appellant did not object to the sale of
such immovable property belonging to the trust at that point of time.
Rather, the appellant received a substantial portion of the sale
2025:CHC-OS:256-DB
proceeds as compensation for the occupation of the portion of such
immovable property sold.
5. Respondents herein filed an application under Section 7 of The
Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 for consideration of the
prayer for grant of leave to the trust to sell certain immovable property
belonging to the trust.
6. The trust in question was created by the Settlor by a registered deed of
trust dated December 1, 1934. The appellant traces his rights through
various clauses of the Deed of Trust. The relevant clauses which the
appellant relies upon are as follows:
5(d) To pay to the following persons from the first of April
one thousand nine hundred and thirty five for their
maintenance per month during their respective lives :-
(9) To pay for the Mess expenses of such of the
Settlor's sons and son's sons now living and those
who shall be born within eighteen years from the
date of these presents and their family members
who shall live in joint Mess at the dwelling house of
the Settlor at Chandernagore the monthly sum of
Rupees two hundred.
(10) To pay the monthly sum of Rupees fifteen for
the maintenance - during the minority of each and
every one of such sons and - daughters of the sons
and daughters of the Settlor as shall - survive his
sons and daughters and shall be in needy
circumstance.
The trustees shall form a scheme in the month of January for
the next financial year and elect from amongst themselves a Managing
Trustee who after the death of the Settlor shall be preferably his
descendent of good character for the administration of the said Trust
2025:CHC-OS:256-DB
Estate and have the accounts audited each and every year by a
Registered Accountant before the month of June next provided that all
questions arising hereafter - - concerning the administration of the
said Trust Estate not clearly defined in these presents shall be settled
by the opinion of the majority in - meetings of Trustees named herein
or appointed hereafter but so long, as the Settlor shall live his opinion
shall prevail over others Provided also that after the death of the
Settlor in case of disputes and differences the same will be referred to
the arbitration of the Mayor of Calcutta or the Mayor of
Chandernagore or the Notary Public of Chandernagore and in case of
- unwillingness of any one to act as an arbitrator to choose any other
- arbitrator or arbitrators and umpire under the law for the time being
in force and the decision shall be final.
7. In our view, appellant before us does not qualify under 5(d) (9) or (10)
of the Deed of Trust. The appellant was not born within eighteen years
from the date of the deed of settlement and is not living in a joint mess
at the dwelling house of the Settlor at Chandernagore for the appellant
to qualify under clause 5(d)(9). The appellant is not in needy
circumstance for him to qualify under clause 5(d)(10).
8. So far as grievances relating to clause 7 of the deed are concerned, the
appellant may take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum, if
so advised.
9. The Court considering the application under Section 7 of the
Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 need not detain itself on the
allegations as made by the appellant. The appellant is not a
beneficiary of the trust established by the Deed dated December 1,
1934. Such allegations are also not to be considered at the behest of
2025:CHC-OS:256-DB
the appellant, in this proceeding, since, the appellant is a beneficiary
of a sale of immovable property belonging to the trust.
10. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the
impugned order dated June 19, 2025.
11. APO/57/2025 along with connected applications are dismissed
without any order as to costs.
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]
12. I agree.
[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]
sp3
