{"id":211776,"date":"1968-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968"},"modified":"2017-03-25T13:11:38","modified_gmt":"2017-03-25T07:41:38","slug":"official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968","title":{"rendered":"Official Trustee, West Bengal & … vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Official Trustee, West Bengal & … vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 823, \t\t 1969 SCR (3)\t 92<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nOFFICIAL TRUSTEE, WEST BENGAL & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSACHINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE & ANR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/12\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  823\t\t  1969 SCR  (3)\t 92\n\n\nACT:\nTrust-Settlor  as trustee reserving power to alter terms  by\nwill-If,  trustee  could alter by  deed\t inter\tvivos-Indian\nTrusts\tAct (2 of 1882), s. 34, Official Trustees Act (2  of\n1913),\ts. 10(1) and Trustees and Mortgagees Powers Act\t (28\nof  1866),  s. 43-Scope of-Judge of High Court\ton  Original\nSide  of  Calcutta High Court-Powers under Chap. 13  of\t the\nOriginal Side Rules-Inherent powers-Scope Official  Trustee-\nLiability for accounting.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe father of the first respondent executed a trust deed  in\n1930,  in  respect  of properties owned by  him.   The\tdeed\nprovided  inter\t alia,\tthat the settlor  would\t be  trustee\nduring\this  life time, that from and after his\t death,\t his\nwife  should be paid Rs. 50 per mensem from the\t profits  of\nthe  trust estate, that the balance of the income was to  be\npaid  in equal shares to the sons of the settlor,  and\tthat\nafter the wife's death, the whole estate was to be made over\nto the settlor's sons in equal shares.\tThe settlor reserved\nto himself the power to vary the quantum of interest,  given\nto  each of the beneficiaries after his death by will  alone\nand in no other way.  After administering the trust for some\ntime  he wanted to make some changes in the trust deed,\t and\nfor  this  purpose took out an originating  summons  on\t the\noriginal  side of the Calcutta High Court, under Ch.  13  of\nthe Original Side Rules and prayed for two reliefs,  namely,\n(i) to have the Official Trustee appointed as the trustee in\nhis  place,  and (ii) to empower the settlor  to  alter\t the\nclause relating to variation of the 'quantum of interest  by\na deed inter vivos.  The first respondent did not appear  in\nthose proceedings though notice was served on him.  The High\nCourt, in specific terms, granted the prayers.\tThe  settlor\nthen  executed\tanother trust deed in 1938 under  which\t the\nfirst  respondent  was deprived of all his interest  in\t the\ncorpus\tof  the\t trust properties and  was  given  a  meagre\nallowance  of  Rs.  20 per  mensem.   The  Official  Trustee\ncarried\t out the order of the High Court and  disbursed\t the\nincome\tto  the various beneficiaries.\tIn 1950,  after\t the\ndeath of the settlor, the first respondent filed a suit\t and\nprayed\t: (i) that the power reserved to the settlor in\t the\noriginal trust deed for altering the quantum of interest  by\nwill  alone,  was irrevocable; (ii) that the  order  on\t the\noriginating  summons was null and void as having  been\tmade\nwithout jurisdiction; (iii) that the plaintiff was  entitled\nto the benefits provided by the original deed; and (iv) that\nthe Official.  Trustee should render accounts since the time\nof the death of the settlor.\nThe  trial  court decreed the suit but the  first  appellate\ncourt reversed the decree.  In second appeal, the High Court\nrestored the decree of the trial court.\nIn appeal to this Court, on the questions : (1) Whether\t the\nsettlor\t was entitled to execute the second trust deed;\t (2)\nWhether\t its validity was not open to challenge in  view  of\nthe order on the originating summons, because, the Judge had\njurisdiction  to  pass the order either under s. 34  of\t the\nIndian\tTrusts\tAct,  1882,  or s.  10(1)  of  the  Official\nTrustees Act, 1913, or s. 41 of the Trustees and  Mortgagees\nPowers Act, 1866, or in\n\t\t\t     93\nexercise  of  his  inherent  powers;  and  (3)\tWhether\t the\nOfficial trustee was liable to render accounts and if so for\nwhat period.\nHELD  :\t (1)  The stipulation in the  trust  deed  that\t the\nvariation  can only be made by will and not otherwise  is  a\nbinding\t condition.  Being a material condition the  settlor\nhad  no\t power\tto vary it and therefore  had  no  power  to\nexecute the second trust deed., [98 F]\nRe  : Anstis [1886] 31 Ch.  D. 596; Reid V. Shergold  (1805)\n10  Ves.  370  and Molineux v. Evered,\t(1910)\t2  Ch.\t147,\napplied.\nHalsbury  3rd Edn.  Vol. 30 p. 272, para. 518  and  Hannbury\nModern Equity (7 Edn. p. 56), referred to.\n(2)  Before  a\tcourt can be held to  have  jurisdiction  to\ndecide\t a   particular\t matter\t it  must  not\t only\thave\njurisdiction  to try it but must also have the authority  to\ndecide\tthe questions at issue and pass appropriate  orders.\nIt  is\tnot  sufficient that it\t has  some  jurisdiction  in\nrelation to the subject-matter under the various  provisions\nof  law or under its inherent power.  If the High Court\t had\nthe  power under those provisions of law or in its  inherent\njurisdiction  the  fact that they were not  invoked  by\t the\npetitioner  in the originating summons would not  invalidate\nthe  order  even  if it was wrong.  But\t the  order  on\t the\noriginating  summons  in the present case  was\toutside\t the\njurisdiction of the Judge.  It was not merely a wrong order,\nor  an\tillegal\t order;\t it was an order  which\t he  had  no\ncompetence to make and was therefore a void order. [101 B-D;\n106 C-D]\nIttavira  Mathai  v.  Varkey Varkey,<\/a> [1964]  1\tS.C.R.\t495,\nreferred to.\nHirday\tNath  Roy v. Ramchandra Barna Sarma,  I.L.R.  LXVIII\nCal. 138, approved.\n(a)  The facts stated and the nature of relief asked for  in\nthe  originating summons, show that the matter did not\tcome\nwithin\tthe  scope  of\ts.  34\tof  the\t Trusts\t Act.\t The\njurisdiction  of  the Court under the section is  a  limited\njurisdiction.  The statute has prescribed what the Court can\ndo   and  inferentially\t what  it  cannot  do.\t Under\t the\nprovision,  the\t Court could only give 'opinion,  advice  or\ndirection   on\t any  presented\t question   respecting\t the\nmanagement or administration of the trust property' and\t not\non  any\t other\tmatter arising under the  trust\t deed.\t The\nrelief\tprayed\tfor  by the settlor did not  relate  to\t the\nmanagement or administration of the trust Property. [101  G;\n102 A-D]\n(b)  Section 10(1) of the Official Trustees Act, 1913, might\nhave  empowered\t the  High Court  to  appoint  the  Official\nTrustee in the place of the settlor, as the settlor was\t not\nwilling\t to  continue  as trustee.  But it  could  not\thave\ngranted the other reliefs asked; for. [102 G]\n(c)  Section  43 of the Trustees and Mortgagees Powers\tAct,\n1866,  is  similar to s. 34 of the Trusts Act.\t Under\tthat\nprovision,  a  Judge of a High Court could have\t only  given\nopinion, advice or direction on any question respecting\t the\nmanagement  or\tadministration\tof the\ttrust  property\t and\ntherefore, the order on the originating summons could not be\njustified on the basis of the section. [103 D]\n(d)  There  is no rule in Ch. 13 of the Original Side  Rules\nof  the\t Calcutta High Court, under which the order  on\t the\noriginating  summons could have been made.  It is not as  if\nthe Judge, in passing his order on the originating  summons,\nwas  merely interpreting the original 'trust deed  in  which\ncase  it might not have mattered whether his  interpretation\nwag 'correct or not. [104 A-C]\n94\nIt  may be that a Judge sitting on the original side of\t the\nHigh  Court  has  all  the powers of  a\t Chancery  Judge  in\nEngland,  but the inherent powers of a Chancery\t Judge\tonly\nrelate\tto management and administration of  trust  property\nwhich  powers are similar to those codified in s. 34 of\t the\nTrusts\tAct and s. 43 of the Trustees and Mortgagees  Powers\nAct, and is therefore of a limited character. [105 G-H;\t 106\nA]\nChapman\t v.  Chapman, [1954] A.C. 429  and  Chapman's  case,\n[1953] Ch. 218, referred to.\n(3)  But  for  the  order on  the  originating\tsummons\t the\nsettlor would have certainly altered by will the quantum  of\ninterest   given  to  the  first  respondent.\t The   first\nrespondent  did not challenge the second trust\tdeed  during\nthe  father's  life-time and there was no  knowing  that  he\nwould have challenged it till he filed the suit.  Since\t the\nOfficial Trustee merely carried out the order of the  Court,\nhe is not a trustee de-son-tort and his liability should not\nbe  greater than that of a trustee.  Therefore, there is  no\nJustification for directing him to account from the date  he\ntook  charge  of the trust estate, and the ends\t of  justice\nwould be met, if accounting was ordered as from the date  of\nsuit. [106 D-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1966.
\nAppeal from the judgment -and decree dated December 22, 1960
\nof  the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate  Decree
\nNo. 701 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
B.   Sen,  P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Chakravarti,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent\t No.\n<\/p>\n
1.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde J. Two important questions of law arise for  decision-
\nin  this appeal, by certificate.  It will be  convenient  to
\nformulate  those  questions after we set  out  the  material
\nfacts.\n<\/p>\n
One  Aswini Kumar Chatterjee (since deceased)  executed\t the
\nTrust deed Exh.\t 1 on December 6, 1930 in respect of some of
\nthe  properties\t owned by him.\tIt is provided\ttherein\t (a)
\nthat  the settlor would be the trustee of the  Trust  Estate
\nand  would  enjoy  the\tincome\tand  profits  of  the  trust
\nproperties during his lifetime, (b) after his death his wife
\nSm.  Santimoyee Devee and\/or his sons as soon as they or any
\nof  them  attain  the age of majority  should  be  the\tsole
\nTrustee\t or Joint Trustees and (c) from and after his  death
\nthe said Trust Estate should be held to the use and for\t the
\nbenefit of the said Sm.\t Santimoyee Devee and the said sons.
\nSantimoyee Devee to be paid from the income and the  profits
\nof  the\t said estate Rs. 50 monthly and the balance  of\t the
\nincome\tand profits of the Trust Estate to be held  for\t the
\nuse  and  benefit of each of the sons in  equal\t shares\t and
\nafter  the death ‘of the said Santimoyee Devee to make\tover
\nthe  whole of the Trust Estate to each of the sons in  equal
\nshares.\t He reserved to
\n\t\t\t     95<\/span>
\nhimself\t the Power to vary the terms and conditions  of\t the
\nTrust so far as they relate to the quantum of interest given
\nto each of the beneficiaries after the death of the  settlor
\n“by  his  instrument by will alone and in no  other  way  or
\nact”.\n<\/p>\n
The settlor administered the trust property for sometime and
\nthereafter thought of effecting by deed inter vivos  certain
\nchanges in the trust.  To enable him to do so he took out an
\noriginating  summons  on the original side of  the  Calcutta
\nHigh Court under Chapter XIII of the Original Side Rules  of
\nthat  Court seeking primarily two reliefs viz., (1) to\thave
\nthe Official Trustee, Bengal appointed as the Trustee in his
\nplace and (2) to empower him to alter the clause relating to
\nvariation  of the quantum of interest given to each  of\t the
\nbeneficiaries  by  a deed inter vivos.\tFrom  the  averments
\nmade in the application, it is clear that relief was  sought
\nunder the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act (Central Act 2
\nof  1882)  and the Official Trustees Act (Central Act  2  of
\n1913).\t In the body of the petition the settlor  definitely
\nprayed for permission to revoke the clause in the trust deed
\nrelating to his power to vary the quantum of interest of the
\nbeneficiaries by will alone and in, its place authorise\t him
\nto make that variation “by deed inter vivos and not by\twill
\nalone”.\t The relevant reliefs asked for in the petition read
\nas follows
\n\t      (1)   “that  the provisions contained  in\t the
\n\t      Deed of settlement dated the 6th December 1930
\n\t      whereby\tthe  persons  therein\tnamed\twere
\n\t      appointed\t Trustees of the said  Trust  Estate
\n\t      and  whereby power was reserved to  petitioner
\n\t      to alter the said quantum of interest by\twill
\n\t      alone   and  in  no  other  way\tbe   revoked
\n\t      and . . . .\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   that  the  petitioner  be  empowered  to
\n\t      alter  the  said quantum of interest  in\tsuch
\n\t      manner  as he may think proper, by deed  inter
\n\t      vivos and not by will alone.”\n<\/p>\n
The  aforementioned  originating summons was  taken  out  on
\nAugust\t20,  1937.  The matter came up\tfor  hearing  before
\nRamfry\tJ.  evidently  after  service  of  notices  on\t the
\nrespondents  on August 25, 1937.  On that date\tthe  learned
\nJudge passed the following order :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is ordered that the provisions  contained
\n\t      in the said Deed of Trust whereby the  persons
\n\t      therein  named were appointed Trustees of\t the
\n\t      said  Trust  Estate  and\twhereby\t power\t was
\n\t      reserved\tto the said applicant to  alter\t the
\n\t      quantum  of interest of the  beneficiaries  by
\n\t      ,will  and  in no other way be  and  they\t are
\n\t      hereby
\n\t      96<\/span>
\n\t      revoked  and  it is further ordered  that\t the
\n\t      said applicant as such settlor as aforesaid be
\n\t      at  liberty  to  alter  the  said\t quantum  of
\n\t      interest in such manner as he may think proper
\n\t      by deed inter vivos and not by will and it  is
\n\t      further  ordered that the said  applicant\t the
\n\t      present  sole trustee under the said  Deed  of
\n\t      Trust be and is hereby discharged from further
\n\t      acting  as  such\tTrustee\t and  the   Official
\n\t      Trustee  of Bengal be and is hereby  appointed
\n\t      the  sole trustee of the said Deed  of  Trust.
\n\t      And it is further ordered that the stocks\t and
\n\t      shares   and  securities\t(both  movable\t and
\n\t      immovable)   now\t comprised  in\t the   Trust
\n\t      Estate… do vest in the said Official Trustee
\n\t      of Bengal as such Trustee as aforesaid.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
At  this  stage it is necessary to emphasize that  what\t the
\nsettlor\t asked for was the court’s permission to revoke\t the
\nclause in the Trust deed empowering him to alter the quantum
\nof  interest  given to each of the  beneficiaries  “by\twill
\nalone” and in its place to confer upon him power to make the
\nsaid alteration by deed inter vivos.  The court in  specific
\nterms  ordered\tthe  revocation and  granted  the  authority
\nsought\tfor.  Acting under the power purported to have\tbeen
\ngiven  by  the order of Ramfry J., the\tsettlor\t executed  a
\nsecond\tTrust deed on March 22, 1938.  Under that  deed,  in
\nthe-  place  of the Trustees nominated\tunder  the  original
\ndeed,  the  Official  Trustee was constituted  as  the\tsole
\ntrustee.   Sachindra, (the first respondent herein)  one  of
\nthe sons of the settlor was deprived of all his interest  as
\na beneficiary in the corpus of the trust properties.  He was
\ngiven  a  meagre allowance of Rs. 20 per  month\t during\t his
\nlife-time.  The settlor died in 1946.\n<\/p>\n
On  December 18, 1950, the first respondent filed  the\tsuit
\nout  of which this appeal has arisen praying  for  following
\ndeclarations :\n<\/p>\n
(a)  that the power reserved by the settlor in the  original
\nTrust deed for altering the quantum of interest of the bene-
\nficiaries  ‘by\twill  alone  and  by  no  other\t means\t was
\nirrevocable; (b)    that  the order passed by Ramfry, J.  on
\nAugust 25, 1937 was null  and  void  as\t having\t been\tmade
\nwithout jurisdiction; and (c) the original Trust deed  stood
\nunaffected  by\tthe second Trust deed and therefore  he\t was
\nentitled  to the benefits provided under the said deed.\t  He
\nalso  asked for a decree directing the Official\t Trustee  to
\npay him 1\/4th of the income of the Trust Estate, so long  as
\nSantimoyee  Devee  was alive and on her death to  make\tover
\none-fourth  of\tthe corpus of the Trust Estate\tto  him\t and
\nfurther\t render accounts to him of the profits of the  Trust
\nEstate\tsince  the time of the death of\t the  settlor.\t The
\nOfficial
\n\t\t\t     97<\/span>
\nTrustee as well as some of the other defendants resisted the
\nsuit.\tThey  contended\t that the settlor  was\tentitled  to
\nexecute\t the  second  Trust deed in exercise  of  the  power
\nreserved  by  him under the original Trust deed and  in\t any
\nevent he could do so, because of the order of Ramfry, J.
\nThe trial court decreed the suit as prayed for but the first
\nAppellate  Court reversed the decree of the trial court\t and
\ndismissed  the\tsuit upholding the contentions\tadvanced  on
\nbehalf\tof the contesting defendants.  In second appeal\t the
\nHigh Court reversed the decree of the first Appellate  Court
\nand restored the decree of the trial court.
\nTwo questions that -arise for decision in the appeal are (1)
\nwhether the settlor was entitled to execute the second Trust
\ndeed  in  pursuance of the power reserved by him  under\t the
\noriginal  Trust\t deed  and  (2) whether\t in  any  event\t the
\nvalidity  of the second Trust deed is not open to  challenge
\nin view of the order made by Ramfry, J. on August 25, 1937.
\nMr. B. Sen, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that
\non a proper reading of the Trust deed it would be seen\tthat
\nthe  settlor had reserved to himself the power to  vary\t the
\nterms of the Trust, in so far as they relate to the quantum,
\nof  interest  given to each of the beneficiaries  after\t the
\ndeath  of the settlor.\tAccording to him the recital in\t the
\ndeed that such a variation can be done only by an instrument
\nof will and not otherwise is not a ” matter of substance but
\nonly  a form.  Therefore we must hold that the\tsettlor\t had
\nthe  power  to make the variation in question.\tHe  did\t not
\ndispute\t the  proposition that a settlor is  incompetent  to
\nvary  any of the terms of a Trust settled by him  unless  he
\nhad reserved for himself the power to make the variation  in
\nquestion.   The\t real question for decision is\twhether\t the
\nstipulation in the Trust deed that the variation in question
\ncan only be made by will and not otherwise is binding condi-
\ntion.\tIf  it is held to be a material condition  then\t the
\nsettlor must be held to have had no power to vary the same.
\nThe law on the point is stated by Halsbury (1) thus
\n\t      Defects  not of the essence.  Equity  relieves
\n\t      only  against  defects which are\tnot  of\t the
\n\t      essence  of  the\tpower; relief  will  not  be
\n\t      granted  so as to defeat anything material  to
\n\t      the intention of the donor of the power.\tThus
\n\t      mere defects in the mode of execution will  be
\n\t      aided,  and  so will an  appointment  by\twill
\n\t      made,  under a power to appoint only by  deed.
\n\t      But no aid will be given to an appointment  by
\n\t      irrevocable deed made under a power to appoint
\n\t      only by will or to an
\n\t      3rd Edn.\tVol. 30 p. 272 Paragraph, 518.\n<\/p>\n
\t      98<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      appointment which would result in -a fraud  on
\n\t      the power or aid a breach of trust.  Moreover,
\n\t      no  aid will be given to the exercise by\twill
\n\t      of  a  power of revocation by deed  if  it  is
\n\t      clear that a deed is of the essence, as  where
\n\t      the original power of appointment was by\twill
\n\t      or deed and on its exercise a power to  revoke
\n\t      by deed only was reserved.  Nor will the court
\n\t      aid  a  lease  containing\t unusual   covenants
\n\t      granted  under  a power to  lease\t with  usual
\n\t      covenants, or a lease granted without  consent
\n\t      under a power to lease with consent, or a sale
\n\t      of  land reserving timber made under  a  power
\n\t      not authorising such a reservation, or a\tsale
\n\t      of land reserving the minerals under  a  power
\n\t      not authorising such a reservation.” IV
\nSimilar are the views expressed in Hanbury’s book on  Modern
\nEquity\t(7th  Edn.  p. 56).  Referring to  the\tdecision  in
\nTollet v.Tollet(1) the learned author observes
\n\t      “The case brings out another important  point.
\n\t      The  power was exercised by will,\t whereas  it
\n\t      should  have  been exercised by deed.   Now  a
\n\t      Will  is\trevocable  at any  time\t during\t the
\n\t      testator’s  life\ttime, and so the  defect  is
\n\t      treated as one of ,form only, and relief\twill
\n\t      be granted.  But the defect constituted by the
\n\t\t\t    converse  process, the attempted  exer
\ncise  by
\n\t      irrevocable deed of a power which should\thave
\n\t      been exercised by will is treated as a  matter
\n\t      of  substance, and, in Reid v. Shergold(2)  as
\n\t      fatal to the objects of the power.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  law\tis similarly stated in\tMolineux  v.
\n\t      Evered(3`).\n<\/p>\n
From  the above discussion it also follows that the  settlor
\nhad  no power to appoint new trustees during his  life\ttime
\nnor designate persons other than those already designated in
\nthe  original Trust deed to act as trustees after  his\tlife
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
Considerable  arguments\t were advanced before us as  to\t the
\neffect\tof the order made by Ramfry, J. on August 25,  1937.
\nOn behalf of the appellant it was urged that Ramfry, J.\t had
\njurisdiction over the parties to the application in question
\nas well as on the subject matter.  Hence the validity of the
\norder  made by him cannot ‘be challenged even if it is\theld
\nthat  that order is -not in accordance with law.  To put  it
\ndifferently  it was urged -that what could be complained  of
\nis not the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court  to
\nmake  the order in question but an illegal exercise of\tthat
\njurisdiction;  but  such an attack cannot -be  made  against
\nthat order in a collateral proceedings.\t On the ,other\thand
\nit was urged by Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, learned
\n(1) (1728) 24 E. R. 828.       (2) [1805] 10, Ves. 370.
\n(3)  [1910] 2 Ch. 147.\n<\/p>\n
99<\/span><\/p>\n
Counsel\t  for  the  respondents\t that  Ramfry,\tJ.  had\t  no
\njurisdiction  to pass the order in question.  His  grievance
\nwas not that Ramfry, J. exercised his undoubted jurisdiction
\nillegally but that he had no jurisdiction at all to make the
\norder in question.\n<\/p>\n
It is plain that if the learned judge had no jurisdiction to
\npass the order in question then the order is null and  void.
\nIt is equally plain that if he had jurisdiction to pronounce
\non the plea put forward before him the fact that he made  an
\nincorrect  order or even an illegal order cannot affect\t its
\nvalidity.   Therefore  all that we have to  see\t is  whether
\nRamfry,\t J.  had jurisdiction to entertain  the\t application
\nmade by the settlor.\n<\/p>\n
What is meant by jurisdiction?\tThis question is answered by
\nMukherjee,  Acting C. J. speaking for the Full Bench of\t the
\nCalcutta High Court in Hirday Nath Roy v. Ramachandra  Barna
\nSarma.(1)  At  page  146 of the\t report\t the  learned  judge
\nexplained what exactly is meant by jurisdiction.  We can  do
\nno better than to   quote his words :\n<\/p>\n
\t      A\t\t”   In the order of Reference  to  a
\n\t      Full  Bench  in the case of  Sukhlal  v.\tTara
\n\t      Chand(2)\tit was stated that jurisdiction\t may
\n\t      be defined to be the power of a Court to\thear
\n\t      and  determine  a\t cause,\t to  adjudicate\t and
\n\t      exercise any judicial power in relation to  it
\n\t      : in other words, by jurisdiction is meant the
\n\t      authority which a Court has to decide  matters
\n\t      that  are\t litigated  before  it\tor  to\ttake
\n\t      cognizance  of matters presented in  a  formal
\n\t      way  for its decision.  An examination of\t the
\n\t      cases in the books discloses numerous attempts
\n\t      to  define the term ‘jurisdiction’, which\t has
\n\t      been  stated  to\tbe ‘the power  to  hear\t and
\n\t      determine\t\t  issues of law\t and  fact’,
\n\t      ‘the  authority by which the judicial  officer
\n\t      take  cognizance of and ‘decide causes’;\t‘the
\n\t      authority\t  to   hear  and  decide   a   legal
\n\t      controversy’,\t    ‘the power to  hear\t and
\n\t      determine\t the subject matter  in\t controversy
\n\t      between parties to a suit and to adjudicate or
\n\t      exercise\tany judicial power over them;’\t‘the
\n\t      power   to  hear,\t determine   and   pronounce
\n\t      judgment on the issues before the Court’; ‘the
\n\t      power  or authority which is conferred upon  a
\n\t      Court by the Legislature to hear and determine
\n\t      causes  between  parties\tand  to\t carry\t the
\n\t      judgments into effect’; ‘the power to  enquire
\n\t      into the facts, to apply the law, to pronounce
\n\t      the judgment and to carry it into\t execution’.
\n\t      (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  I.L.R. LXVIII Cal. 138.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1905] I.L.R. 33 Cal. 68.\n<\/p>\n
100<\/span><\/p>\n
Proceeding further the learned judge observed
\n\t      “This   jurisdiction  of\tthe  Court  may\t  be
\n\t      qualified\t or  restricted\t by  -a\t variety  of
\n\t      circumstances.   Thus,  the  jurisdiction\t may
\n\t      have to be considered with reference to place,
\n\t      value  and nature of the subject matter.\t The
\n\t      power  of a tribunal may be  exercised  within
\n\t      defined  territorial limits.   Its  cognizance
\n\t      may   be\trestricted  to\tsubject-matters\t  of
\n\t      prescribed value.\t It may be competent to deal
\n\t      with  controversies of a specified  character,
\n\t      for  instance,  testamentary  or\t matrimonial
\n\t      causes,\tacquisition  of\t lands\tfor   public
\n\t      purposes,\t  record   of  rights\tas   between
\n\t      landlords and tenants.  This jurisdiction\t and
\n\t      jurisdiction   of\t  the  subject\t matter\t  is
\n\t      obviously\t of a fundamental character.   Given
\n\t      such  jurisdiction,  we  must  be\t careful  to
\n\t      distinguish  exercise  of\t jurisdiction\tfrom
\n\t      existence of jurisdiction : for  fundamentally
\n\t      different\t are the consequences of failure  to
\n\t      comply  with  statutory  requirements  in\t the
\n\t      assumption    and\t  in   the    exercise\t  of
\n\t      jurisdiction.  The authority to decide a cause
\n\t      at  all and not the decision rendered  therein
\n\t      is what makes up jurisdiction; and when  there
\n\t      is  jurisdiction\tof the\tperson\tand  subject
\n\t      matter,  the decision of all  other  questions
\n\t      arising  in  the case is but  an\texercise  of
\n\t      that,jurisdiction.   The extent to  which\t the
\n\t      conditions essential for creating and  raising
\n\t      the jurisdiction of a Court or the  restraints
\n\t      attaching\t to  the mode of  exercise  of\tthat
\n\t      jurisdiction,   should  be  included  in\t the
\n\t      conception   of\tjurisdiction   itself,\t  is
\n\t      sometimes\t a question of great nicety,  as  is
\n\t      illustrated  by the decisions reviewed in\t the
\n\t      order of reference in Sukhlal v. Tara Chand(1)
\n\t      and Khosh Mahomed v. Nazir Mahomed(2) see also
\n\t      the  observation of Lord Parkar in  Raghunath,
\n\t      v. Sundar Das(3) … We must not thus overlook
\n\t      the  cardinal  position  that  in\t order\tthat
\n\t      jurisdiction may be exercised, there must be a
\n\t      case legally before the Court and a hearing as
\n\t      well   as\t  a   determination.\tA   judgment
\n\t      pronounced by a court without jurisdiction  is
\n\t      void,  subject to the  well-known\t reservation
\n\t      that,  when  the jurisdiction of\ta  Court  is
\n\t      challenged,  the Court is competent to  deter-
\n\t      mine the question of jurisdiction, though\t the
\n\t      result  of the enquiry may be that it  has  no
\n\t      jurisdiction  to deal with the matter  brought
\n\t      before it : Rashmoni v. Ganada.(4)”  (emphasis
\n\t      supplied).\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1905] I.L.R.33 Cal.68.   (2) (1905) I.L.R.33Cal.352.
\n(3) [1914] I.L.R.42 Cal.72.   (4) [1914] 20 C.I.J.213.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    101<\/span><\/p>\n
Finally the learned judge quoted with approval the  decision
\nof  Srinivas Aiyangar, J. in Tuljaram v.  Gopala(1)  wherein
\nAiyangar, J. laid down that “if a Court has jurisdiction  to
\ntry a suit and has authority to pass orders of a  particular
\nkin#, the (,act that it has passed an order which it  should
\nnot have made in the circumstances of the litigation,,\tdoes
\nnot  indicate  total want or loss of jurisdiction so  as  to
\nrender the order a nullity” (emphasis supplied).
\nFrom  the above discussion it is clear that before  a  Court
\ncan  be\t held to have jurisdiction to decide  -a  particular
\nmatter\tit must not only have jurisdiction to try  the\tsuit
\nbrought but must also have the authority to pass, the orders
\nsought\tfor.   It  is  not  sufficient\tthat  it  has\tsome
\njurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the  suit.
\nIts  jurisdiction must include the power to hear and  decide
\nthe questions at issue, the authority to hear and decide the
\nparticular controversy that has arisen between the  parties.
\nTherefore the fact that Ramfry, J. had jurisdiction to\tpass
\ncertain\t orders either under the Indian Trust Act,  1882  or
\nunder the Official Trustees Act, 1913 or under the  Trustees
\nand  Mortgages Powers Act, 1866 or under his inherent  power
\nis  not\t conclusive  of the matter.   What  is\trelevant  is
\nwhether\t he had the power to grant the relief asked  for  in
\nthe  application made by the settlor.  That we think is\t the
\nessence of the matter.\tIt cannot be disputed that if it  is
\nheld  that the learned judge had competence to pronounce  on
\nthe  issue presented for his decision then the fact that  he
\ndecided that issue illegally or incorrectly is wholly beside
\nthe  point.  See Ittavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey and A<\/a>\t nr.
\n(2).  Therefore we have now to see whether the learned judge
\nhad  jurisdiction  to  decide the issue\t presented  for\t his
\ndetermination.\tThe relief prayed for, as seen earlier,\t was
\nto  Permit the settlor to revoke particular clauses  in\t the
\nTrust  deed  and to authorise him to alter  the\t quantum  of
\ninterest given to each of the beneficiaries by a deed  inter
\nvivos.\t Had  the learned judge\t jurisdiction  to  entertain
\nthose pleas ?\n<\/p>\n
Reliance was placed on s. 34 of the Indian Trusts Act,\t1882
\nas  conferring\tpower  on the judge to\tmake  the  order  in
\nquestion.  That section reads
\n\t      “Any trustee may, without instituting a  suit,
\n\t      apply  by petition to a principal Civil  Court
\n\t      of  original  jurisdiction  for  its  opinion,
\n\t      advice  or direction on any present  questions
\n\t      respecting the management or administration of
\n\t      the  trust  property other than  questions  of
\n\t      detail,  difficulty or importance, not  proper
\n\t      in  the  opinion\tof  the\t Court\tfor  summary
\n\t      disposal.”\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1964] 1 S.C.R. 495.\n<\/p>\n
102<\/span><\/p>\n
Under  this  provision\tthe  court  could  have\t only  given
\n“opinion,  advice  or direction on  any\t presented  question
\nrespecting  the\t management or administration of  the  trust
\nproperty”  and not on any other matters.  The relief  prayed
\nfor  by\t the  settlor did not relate to\t the  management  or
\nadministration\tof the trust Property but on the other\thand
\nit  asked  for authority to alter the  quantum\tof  interest
\ngiven  to each of the beneficiaries by a deed  inter  vivos.
\nThe  jurisdiction  confrere on the court under s.  34  is  a
\nlimited\t jurisdiction.\tUnder that provision, the court\t has
\nnot  been  conferred with overall  jurisdiction\t in  matters
\narising under a Trust deed.  The statute has prescribed what
\nthe court can do and inferentially what it cannot do.\tFrom
\nthe  fact that the court has been conferred power  to  grant
\nonly certain reliefs it follows as a matter of law that\t the
\ncourt  has been prohibited from granting any  other  relief.
\nThe  jurisdiction  of  the court  is  circumscribed  by\t the
\nprovisions  of\ts. 34 of the Trusts Act.  The court  had  no
\njurisdiction  to pronounce on the pleas put forward  by\t the
\nsettlor.  From the facts stated in the petition and from the
\nrelief asked for, it was obvious that the case did not\tcome
\nwithin the scope of s. 34 of the Trust Act.  Therefore\twhen
\nthe  learned  judge  granted the relief asked  for,  he\t did
\nsomething  which he was not competent to do under s.  34  of
\nthe Trusts Act.\n<\/p>\n
Next we were told the learned judge had jurisdiction to pass
\nthe  order  in\tquestion  under s.  10(1)  of  the  Official
\nTrustees Act, 1913 which reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “If  any\tproperty is subject to\ttrust  other
\n\t      than  a  trust which the Official\t Trustee  is
\n\t      prohibited from accepting under the provisions
\n\t      of  this Act, and there is no  trustee  within
\n\t      the   local   limits  of\t the   ordinary\t  or
\n\t      extraordinary  original civil jurisdiction  of
\n\t      the  High Court willing or capable to  act  in
\n\t      the  trust, the High Court may on\t application
\n\t      make  an\torder  for the\tappointment  of\t the
\n\t      Official Trustee by that name with his consent
\n\t      to be the trustee of such property.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  provision has no relevance as regards the\t controversy
\nwith  which  we\t are dealing.\tThat  provision\t might\thave
\nempowered  the court to appoint the Official Trustee in\t the
\nplace  of  the\tsettlor as the settlor was  not\t willing  to
\ncontinue as the trustee.  But it could not have granted\t the
\nother reliefs asked for.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance  was  next  placed on s. 43  of  the  Trustees\t and
\nMortgagees Powers Act, 1866.  There is no reference to\tthis
\nAct  in the application made by the settlor.   Obviously  he
\ndid not rely on any of the provisions in that Act.  But then
\nif the court could
\n\t\t\t    103<\/span>
\nhave  acted  on the basis of any of the provisions  in\tthat
\nAct,  the  fact that it did not purport to  act\t under\tthat
\nprovision is, immaterial.  Therefore we have to see  whether
\nthe  court  could  have acted on the basis  of\tany  of\t the
\nprovisions in the said Act.  The only provision of that\t Act
\non which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants  is
\ns.  43(1).   The portion of that section  relevant  for\t our
\npresent purpose reads :\n<\/p>\n
.lm15
\n”  Any\ttrustee,  executor  or\tadministrator  shall  be  at
\nliberty,  without  the institution of a suit,  to  apply  by
\npetition  to  any Judge of the High Court for  the  opinion,
\nadvice or direction of such Judge on any question respecting
\nthe  management or administration of the trust\tproperty  or
\nthe assets of any testator or intestate.. . ”
\nThis provision is more or less similar to s. 34 of the Trust
\nAct.   Under  that provision a judge of a High\tCourt  could
\nhave only given opinion, advice or direction on any question
\nrespecting  the\t management or administration of  the  trust
\nproperty.  Therefore the order made by Ramfry, J. cannot  be
\njustified  on  the  basis  of s.  43  of  the  Trustees\t and
\nMortgagees Powers Act.1866.\n<\/p>\n
It was then said that the order in question could have\tbeen
\nmade by Ramfry, J. in the exercise of his inherent powers as
\na  judge sitting on the original side of the  Calcutta\tHigh
\nCourt.\t It was argued that a judge sitting on the  original
\nside of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta has all the
\npowers of a Chancery Judge in England as that power has been
\nconferred on him by the Letters Patent granted to that\tHigh
\nCourt.\t We shall assume it to be so.  We may note that\t the
\nsettlor\t did  not invoke the inherent  jurisdiction  of\t the
\nCourt  nor  did the judge purport to  exercise\tthat  power.
\nBut,  still,  that cannot invalidate the order made  if\t the
\ncourt  had  the inherent jurisdiction to  make\tthat  order.
\nHence\tthe   real  question  is  had\the   that   inherent
\njurisdiction?  Chapter XIII of the Calcutta High Court Rules
\nprescribes  what  orders can be obtained in  an\t originating
\nsummons\t proceedings.  The jurisdiction of the judge  acting
\nunder  that  Chapter is a summary jurisdiction.\t Rule  1  of
\nthat Chapter empowers the judge to entertain an\t application
\nin  respect of matters enumerated in clauses (a) to  (g)  of
\nthat  rule.   Admittedly cls. (a) (b), (f) and (g)  are\t not
\nrelevant for our present purpose.  Under cl. (c), the  court
\ncould  only  decide  -about  furnishing\t of  any  particular
\naccounts by trustees and vouching (where necessary) of\tsuch
\naccounts.  Under cl. (c) it could direct the trustees to pay
\ninto court ‘any monies in his hands and under cl. (e) direct
\nhim  to file an account and vouch the same to do or  abstain
\nfrom doing any particular act in his character as a trustee.
\nThe orders under
\n104<\/span>
\nCh.  XIII  are made in chambers.  As mentioned\tearlier\t the
\nproceedings  under, that Chapter are  summary.\tproceedings.
\nNo  rule  in that Chapter was brought to  our  notice  under
\nwhich the ,order in question could have been made.
\nDifferent  questions might have arisen for consideration  if
\nan  ,application under rule 9 of Chapter XIII had been\tmade
\nrequesting  the High Court to interpret the  original  Trust
\ndeed  in ,a particular manner, Such a plea was not taken  in
\nthe  application  filed\t by the settlor\t before\t Ramfry,  J.
\nFurther it was not the ,case of the appellant either in\t the
\nHigh Court or in the courts below or even in this Court that
\nRamfry, J. merely purported to interpret the original  Trust
\ndeed whether his interpretation is ,correct or not.
\nLet  us\t now proceed to the question  whether  the  Chancery
\nCourt in, England had jurisdiction to pass an order  similar
\nto  that  made by Ramfry, J. This question  was\t elaborately
\nconsidered  by\tthe House of Lords in Chapman  and  Ors.  v.
\nChapman\t and Ors.(1). The leading judgment in that case\t was
\ndelivered  by  Lord Morton of Henryton.\t In  his  speech  he
\nelaborately  considered the -various decisions\trendered  by
\nthe  English courts.  The broad question that he  posed\t for
\ndecision was -whether the court could permit the settlor  to
\nalter  the terms of a trust and if so in what  respect.\t  It
\nwas  urged  before him on behalf of the appellants  in\tthat
\ncase   that  the  court\t had  jurisdiction  to\tpermit\t the
\nalteration of any of the terms of a trust.  Negativing\tthat
\ncontention his Lordship observed at p. 456
\n\t      “Striking\t instances of cases  which  negative
\n\t      the   existence  of  the\talleged,   unlimited
\n\t      jurisdiction  are\t In re\tCrawshay,(2)  In  re
\n\t      Morrison(3) (Buckley, J.) and In re Montagu(4)
\n\t      ‘(Court  of  Appeal).  In the first  of  these
\n\t      cases  North,  J.\t said:\t‘I  should  not\t  be
\n\t      administering  the  trusts  created  by\t‘the
\n\t      testator\tif  I consented to this\t scheme.   I
\n\t      should be altering his trusts and substituting
\n\t      something\t quite\toutside the  will.   On\t the
\n\t      assumption that the scheme would be beneficial
\n\t      to  the  estate, I cannot decide that  I\thave
\n\t      jurisdiction  to authorise it’ ” In  the\tlast
\n\t      mentioned\t case the Court of Appeal held\tthat
\n\t      it  had no jurisdiction to allow the  trustees
\n\t      of a settlement to raise money by mortgage  of
\n\t      the settled estate and to apply it in  pulling
\n\t      down and rebuilding some of the houses on\t the
\n\t      property.\t Lindley, L. J. said ‘We none of  us
\n\t      see our
\n(3) [1901]1 Ch. 701.\t\t\t   (4) [1897] 2Ch.8.\n<\/p>\n
105<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      way to hold that there is jurisdiction to make
\n\t      an  order in this case.  It is very  desirable
\n\t      that  the\t court should have  jurisdiction  to
\n\t      deal  with  such a case;\tbut  Parliament\t has
\n\t      never gone so far as to give it that jurisdic-
\n\t      tion.  No doubt it would be a judicious  thing
\n\t      to do what is wanted in this case, and if\t the
\n\t      persons interested were all ascertained and of
\n\t      age,  they would probably concur, and then  it
\n\t      might   be   done;  but  they  are   not\t all
\n\t      ascertained  nor of full age; and\t unless\t the
\n\t      court can authorize the trustees to do it,  it
\n\t      cannot be done.’ Lopes, L.J. said: ‘I have  no
\n\t      doubt that what is proposed is beneficial\t and
\n\t      would increase both the income and the capital
\n\t      value  of\t the  property.\t  The  question\t  is
\n\t      whether the court has jurisdiction to sanction
\n\t      it.   There is no provision in the  settlement
\n\t      which  would authorize the works in  question,
\n\t      nor   do\t they  fall  within   any   of\t the
\n\t      improvements  sanctioned by the Settled  Lands
\n\t      Act.”\n<\/p>\n
From  the  above observations it is clear that\tthe  learned
\njudge  proceeded  on  the  basis  that\tthe  court  has\t  no
\njurisdiction to permit the alteration of any of the terms in
\na trust deed excepting as regards the following matters\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   Changes  in\t the nature of\tan  infant’s
\n\t      property\te.g. by directing investment of\t his
\n\t      personality in the purchase of freeholds;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   Allowing   the   trustees\tof   settled
\n\t      property\t to   enter   into   some   business
\n\t      transaction  which was not authorized  by\t the
\n\t      settlement;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   Allowing maintenance out of income which
\n\t      the   settlor  or\t testator  directed  to\t  be\n<\/p>\n
\t      -accumulated; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   Approving  a  compromise  on  behalf  of
\n\t      infants and possible after-born beneficiaries.
\nIt  will  be noticed that the power given under\t those\tfour
\nheads  are those relating to management and  -administration
\nof  trust  property.   That power is similar  to  the  power
\nconferred on courts by S. 34 of the Trusts Act and 43 of the
\nTrustees  and Mortgagees Powers Act, 1866.  In fact in\tthis
\ncountry we have codified the very powers that were exercised
\nby  the\t Chancery Courts in England  under  their  equitable
\njurisdiction.\tThe  Court of Appeal  in  Chapman’s  case(1)
\nEvershed,  M.R. and Romer, L.JJ., Denning,  L.J.  dissenting
\nstated the law on the point thus :\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1953] Ch. 1 218.\n<\/p>\n
L 7 Sup.  CI\/69-8
\n106<\/span>
\nThe  inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery is of  a
\nlimited character.  It is a jurisdiction to confer upon\t the
\ntrustee,  quoad\t items\tof trust property  vested  in  them,
\nadministrative\tpowers\tto  be exercised  by  them  where  a
\nsituation has arisen in regard to the property creating what
\nmay   be  fairly  called  an  ,emergency’.    The   inherent
\njurisdiction  does not extend to, sanctioning generally\t the
\nmodification  or  remoulding of the beneficial trusts  of  a
\nsettlement.\n<\/p>\n
Hence  we  are\tnot persuaded that  the\t Chancery  Court  in
\nEngland\t had  jurisdiction to pass orders  similar  to\tthat
\npassed by Ramfry, J.\n<\/p>\n
From whatever angle we may examine the validity of the order
\nmade  by Ramfry, J., it appears clear to us, that  the\tsaid
\norder was outside the jurisdiction of the learned judge.  It
\nwas not merely a wrong order, or an illegal order, it was an
\norder which he had no competence to make.  It is not  merely
\nan  order that he should not have passed but it is an  order
\nthat he could not have passed and therefore a void order.
\nThe circumstances of the case call for certain modifications
\nin the decree of the High Court.  On the facts of this\tcase
\nwe see no justification for treating the Official Trustee as
\na trustee de-son-tort and to require him to account as such.
\nIn  the proceedings before Ramfry, J. the plaintiff did\t not
\nchoose\tto appear and contest.\tIt is not his case  that  he
\nwas  not  served in that proceeding.  But for the  order  of
\nRamfry,\t J.  the settlor would have  certainly\taltered\t the
\nquantum\t of  interest  given  to  the  plaintiff  under\t the
\noriginal  Trust deed by means of a will,.  As it now  turned
\nout  the plaintiff has benefited by the wrong step taken  by
\nthe  settlor.  The Official Trustee has merely\tcarried\t out
\nthe order of the court.\t It was not open to him to go behind
\nthat order.  That being so we see no _justification to treat
\nhim  as\t a  trustee. deson-tort.  Equity  requires  that  he
\nshould be made to account as if he was ‘a trustee.  In other
\nwords  his  liability should not be greater than that  of  a
\ntrustee.   It  is  also proper to permit  him  to  reimburse
\nhimself all the costs incurred by him in all the courts from
\nout of the trust funds in his hands.\n<\/p>\n
We see no justification for allowing accounting in this case
\nfrom the date the official Trustee took charge of the  trust
\nestate.\t Till the institution of the present suit from which
\nthis  appeal  has  arisen  there was  no  knowing  that\t the
\nplaintiff would challenge the second Trust deed executed  by
\nhis  father.   He did not challenge it during  his  father’s
\nlife time.  On the faith of the order of the High Court, the
\nOfficial Trustee must have been disbursing the trust  income
\nto  the various beneficiaries.\tIt will be  inequitable\t to,
\nreopen all those transactions.\tWe think the end,,;
\n1 07
\nof justice will be met if accounting is ordered as from\t the
\ndate of the institution of the present suit.  The plaintiff-
\nrespondent is entitled to his costs in all the courts.\t But
\nhe shall get the same from out of the Trust Estate.
\nSubject to the modifications directed above in the decree of
\nthe High Court this appeal is dismissed.
\nV.P.S.\t\tAppeal dismissed and decree modified.\n<\/p>\n
108<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Official Trustee, West Bengal & … vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 823, 1969 SCR (3) 92 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, WEST BENGAL & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SACHINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE & ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/1968 BENCH: HEGDE, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nOfficial Trustee, West Bengal & ... vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Official Trustee, West Bengal & ... vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-25T07:41:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Official Trustee, West Bengal & … vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-25T07:41:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968\"},\"wordCount\":5677,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968\",\"name\":\"Official Trustee, West Bengal & ... vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-25T07:41:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Official Trustee, West Bengal & … vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Official Trustee, West Bengal & ... vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Official Trustee, West Bengal & ... vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-25T07:41:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Official Trustee, West Bengal & … vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968","datePublished":"1968-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-25T07:41:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968"},"wordCount":5677,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968","name":"Official Trustee, West Bengal & ... vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-25T07:41:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/official-trustee-west-bengal-vs-sachindra-nath-chatterjee-anr-on-13-december-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Official Trustee, West Bengal & … vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}