MURALIDHAR AGARWALA Vs. MOHINI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff-Respondent brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises for removal of the Defendants from their office as trustees restraining them from acting in future in such capacity and for accounts against them. Motilal Sadani carried on business at Kharagpur in the district of Midnapore. He died in March, 1943, at Bikaneer leaving Gouri Shanker, Plaintiff No. 2, a minor son and Mohini Devi, the widow. It is alleged that Motilal had a money-lending and pawn broker's business and was also the owner of a concern for the sale of cycles, cycle parts and accessories thereof. At the time of his death he had a large quantity of linseed in stock ready for sale. He is alleged to have had large deposits in different banks and with a firm of Shaligram Nathani. He had also a large quantity of jewelleries with another firm. After the death of Motilal his widow Mohini Devi continued the running business with the help of old servants of the deceased.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 Muralidhar Agarwala who had business connections at Kharagpur and was known from before to the Plaintiff's family undertook to manage the business affairs belonging to the Plaintiffs. Muralidhar thereupon got a document which is subsequently described as a deed of trust, got it signed by Plaintiff No. 1 Mohini Devi on September 22, 1944. By the said document the three Defendants including Muralidhar were described as trustees and with the execution of the document he immediately took over the management of the properties and entered into possession thereof, subject to a monthly payment of Rs. 300 to the settlor Mohini Devi and her minor son and daughter. The powers and authority of the so-called trustees were also indicated.

(3.) The Plaintiffs in the present suit claim that the alleged document which had been obtained from the Plaintiff No. 1 without her appreciating the significance thereof was an illegal, mala fide, fraudulent and void one. The terms contained in the said document are neither valid nor binding on the Plaintiffs, particularly, the document did not create any valid trust. The transaction was not beneficial to the estate of the minor and the alleged provisions with the authority created in favour of the trustees describing the same as irrevocable were wholly void and unenforceable. Although the Defendants were called upon by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs to desist from acting as the alleged trustees and though the authority, if any, given to the Defendants had been revoked, the Defendants were still continuing to act and remain in possession. One Mohanlal Daga, a son-in-law of Motilal Sadani, was brought in by Defendant No. 1 as an employee in the business and in collusion with him the Defendants were misappropriating the assets and the income.