FAZALBHOY CURRIMBHOY ETC. versus OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., ETC.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 12-12-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
• 
699 
FAZALBHOY CURRIMBHOY ETC. 
v. 
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., ETC. 
December 12, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK JJ.l 
Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Act, 1913-Act created a trust of the 
properties of the First Baronet-Fourth Baronet migrated to Pakistan and was 
declared an evacuee-State Legislature passed the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim 
BaronNcy (Repealing and Distribution of Trust Properties) Act, 1959-S. 1(4) 
.of the Repealing Act-Scope of-Effect of repeal-Official Trustee-If required 
Jo transfer and vest in the Cujfodian the trust properlies found to be evacuee 
property. 
In 1911 King George V conferred the "dignity, status and degree" of a 
Baronet on Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim of Bombay. 
To provide for the upkeep 
and dignity of the Baronetcy the Sir 0..rrimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Act, 
1913 was ptlssed by virtue of which considerable properties belonging to Sir 
A 
B 
c 
Currirnbhoy Ebrahim were settled upon the trust. 
D 
Section 8 of the BarOnetcy Act provided that the residue of income from 
the properties settled under the trust was to be paid to the first Baronet and 
the heir male of his body, who would, for the time being succeed to the title 
of Baronet. Section 27 provided for the vesting of all properties and funds 
in the Trust "upon failure and in default of heirs male of the body of the 
Iast Baronet." The First Baronet left behind a Will 
in 
respect of certain 
E 
other properties. 
On the death of the Fir<:t 
l\<'!ron~t his eldest son assumed 
the title of Second Baronet and on the death of the Second Baronet his eldest 
son llussainbhoy became the Third Baronet. 
'fhe Third Baronet migrated to Pakistan between the years 1947 and 1949. 
He wasi therefore, declared an evacuee. Certain properties belonging to him 
were declared vested in the Custodian of 
Evacuee 
Property. Two 
other 
F 
immovable properties as well as the right, title and interest of the 
Third 
Baronet in the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust were decllared as 
evacuee properties and vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. 
On the 
death of the Third Baronet in Pakistan in 1952 his eldest son Mohamedbhoy 
1iUCCeeded as the Fourth Baronet. At that time the Fourth Baronet was resid-
ing in India, but shortly thereafter he migrated to Pakistan. The 
Deputy 
-Custodian of Evacuee Property made an order declaring the Fourth Baronet 
G 
an evacuee and notified his beneficial interest in the Trust as evacuee property 
vesting in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. 
The Fourth Baronet having migrated to Pakistan along with his son, the 
Bombay Legislature passed the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy (Repealing 
& Distribution of Trust Properties) Act, 1959. The Repealing Act inter alia 
revoked and extinguished the trusts, powers, provisions, declaration and pur-
H 
poses declared and expressed in the Sir CUrrimbhoy Ebt\lhim Baronetcy Act 
and vested the properties and funds in the Official Trustee for the purpose of 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979) 2 s.c.R, 
A 
distributing them amongst the persons rightfully entitled thereto, according 
to law. 
B 
c 
D 
The Official Tiustee thereupon called upon the persons claiming interest 
in the trust properties to submit their claims. 
On the Official Trustee's application under s. 7 (2) of the Repealing Act 
seeking orders and directions of the High Court as regtaTds distribution of 
the trust properties amongst the several claimant11, a single Judge of the High 
Court took the view that the Custodian was not entitled to the share of the 
Fourth Baronet in the Trust properties because the beneficial interest of the 
Fourth Baronet which had vested in the Custodian came to an e:ed on the 
extinction of the Trust that the Repealing Act had the effect of giving rise 
to a resulting trust in favour of the settler, the first Baronet; that the trust pro-
perties reverted to his estate on his death, that they mus.t be deemed to pass by 
inheritance, according to the Muslim personal law, an~ that the residuary clause 
· in the will executed by the First Baronet did not cover the trust properties. 
A Division Bench of the High Court on appeal held that on the terms of 
the Will a contrary intention had been manifested by the First Jl<rronet that 
in the event of the failure of the Trust the trust properties shall, after his life 
time, be held for the benefit of the Baronet for the time being and therefore 
the Fourth Baronet was entitled to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.