SANAT KUMAR MITRA Vs. HEM CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a representative suit instituted by the plaintiff for self and other members of the Hindu community interested in the trust created by the Will of Akshoy Kumar Ghosh deceased. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Hem Chandra Dey and Protap Narayan Bose were impleaded on the allegation that they were purporting to act as executors and trustees. Defendant no. 3 is Ashutosh Coomar in whose favour a lease was granted of one of the trust properties. The defendants Nos. 5 and 6 Prosanno Kumar and Hemanta Kumar are stated to be the heirs of the settlor along with the plaintiff. The defendant No. 4 is the deity. During the pendency of this suit the defendants Hem Chandra and Basanta died and their heirs and legal representatives have been substituted in their place and stead.

(2.) The nature of the suit will appear from the reliefs claimed. There are averments in the plaint in support of the reliefs. The title of the defendants Hem Chandra and Protap Narayan to act as trustees has been challenged. So also the lease has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the grantors were not properly appointed executors and trustees and were not competent in law to grant the tease. The executors and trustees have been alleged to, be guilty of various acts of mismanagement and breaches of trust. The allegations challenging the validity of the appointment of trustees have been introduced by way of amendment. The raliefs claimed are:-

(3.) In the written statement filed by the different defendants all allegations of mismanagement and breaches of trust have been denied. The allegations challenging the validity of the appointment of trustees have also been denied. It is alleged that the appointments were matte pursuant to the order of the District Judge, 24 Perganrias in proper proceedings in that behalf and the said orders are still there and have not been set aside. It is contended that in consequence the beneficiaries under the trust must be deemed to have ratified the appointment and the irregularity, if any, in the appointment of executors has been Cured. It is pleaded that the suit is not maintainable by reason of the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further pleaded that the suit is, in any event, barred by limitation.