SANTONA ROY Vs. ADVOCATE GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit on an Originating Summons which was taken out for the determination of questions arising under a deed of settlement. On the 14th March 1913, the deed was executed by one Suprasanna Ray who, along with his brother, Upendranarayan Ray, jointly held and possessed extensive estates in different districts of Bengal. Disputes had arisen between the two brothers and a suit for partition of the joint properties had resulted in a decree on the 2nd February 1911. Suprasanna, however, failed to obtain possession of the properties awarded to him, and instituted a second suit for recovery of his allotment or for a fresh partition of the entire estate. The result was that Suprasanna became heavily indebted, and the affairs of his estate were in a state of great mismanagement. In these circumstances, he executed the trust deed under consideration, with a view to pay off his debts, and to make arrangements for the proper management of his properties, for the support and maintenance of himself and his family, and for the payment of charities which had been observed and paid by him and his father. Two trustees, who were to receive a remuneration of Rs. 100 a month each, were appointed, and the estate allotted to him in the first partition suit, or what might be allotted on the second partition, was vested in them. The trustees were empowered amongst other things to take possession, to recover all dues, and, from time to time, if and when they thought fit, "to borrow money and to sell, exchange, surrender, give up, mortgage, charge, pledge or dispose of the properties" conveyed to them or any of them or any portion thereof. These are inaccurately described as "trusts," but are really "powers" conferred on the trustees to enable them to carry out the trusts effectively. In the seventh clause, the trusts which were to be performed out of the rents, issues, profits and income of the properties " were enumerated in the following order: (1) To pay the litigation expenses; (2) To pay the management charges: (3) To pay the interest on secured debts; (4) To pay the interest on unsecured debts; (5) To pay Rs. 200 a month to the settlor for personal expenses and Rs. 350 a month to his wife for household expenses--these sums to be raised to Rs. 250 and Rs. 500 respectively, after half the debts had been discharged; (6) To apply the balance, if any, to the liquidation of debts specified in one of the schedules or proved to the satisfaction of the trustees: (7) (a) To expend, after the liquidation of all the debts, "the sum of Rs. 500 per month for such medical and educational charities within the Zemindari of the settlor as shall, with the approval of the settlor, appear just to the trustees. " (b) To pay Rs. 500 per month to the wife of the settlor for household expenses; and (c) To pay the balance to the settlor.

(2.) The seventh Clause further contained a provision that, on the death of the wife of the settlor during his lifetime, the amount made payable to her would become payable to the settlor himself until he remarried, when it would become payable to the newly married wife.

(3.) The eighth Clause laid down that, after the liquidation of the debts, properties yielding an income of Rs. 1,000 a month would be transferred to the settlor absolutely subject to the condition that if any of the properties were sold, the income of the properties to be so conveyed would be reduced proportionately.