OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus SACHINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 13-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
v. 
SACHINDRA NATH CHAITERJEE & ANR. 
December 13, 1968 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Trust-Settlor as trustee reserving power to alter terms by will-I/ 
trustee could alter b,v deed inter vivos--Jndian Trusts Act (2 of 1882) 
s. 34, Official Trustees Act (2 of 1913), s. 10(1) and Trustees and Mort: 
gagees Powers Act (28 of 1866), s. 43-Scope of-Judge of High Court 
on Original Sidt of Calcutta High Court-Powers under Chap. 13 of the 
Original Side Rules-Inherent 
powers-Scope of--Official Trustee-
Liability for accounting. 
The father of the first respondent executed a trust deed in 1930, in 
respect of properties owned by him. 
The deed provided litter <ilia, that 
the settlor would be trustee during his life time, that from and after his 
death, his wife should be paid Rs. 50 per mensem from the profits of the 
trust estate, that the balance of the income was to be paid in equal shares 
to the sons of the settlor, and that after the wife's death, the whole estate 
was to be made over to the settlor's sons in equal shares. 
The settlor 
reserved to himself the power to vary the q~antum of interest, given to 
each of the beneficiaries after his death by will alone and in no other way. 
After administering the trust for some time he wanted to make some 
changes in the trust deed, and for this purpose took out an originating 
summons on the original side of the Calcutta High Court, under Ch. 13 
of the Original Side Rules and prayed for two reliefs, namely, (i) to 
have the Official Trustee appointed as the trustee in his place, and (ii) to 
empower the settlor to alter the clause relating to variation of the quan· 
tum of interest by a deed inter vivos. The first respondent did not appear 
in those proceedings though notice was served on him. The High 
Court, in specific terms, wanted the prayers. The settlor then executed 
another trust deed in 1938 under which the first respondent was deprived 
of all his interest in the corpus of the trust properties and was given a 
meagre allowance of Rs. 20 per mensem. 
The Official Trustee earned 
out the order of the High Court and disbursed the income to the various 
beneficiaries. In 1950, after the death of the settlor, the first respondent 
filed a suit and prayed : ( i) that thei power resen-.d to the set ti or in the 
original trust deed for altering the quantum of interest by will alone, was 
irrevocable; (ii) that the order on the originating summons was null and 
void as having been made without jurisdiction; (iii) that the plaintiff was 
entitled to the benefits provided by the original deed; and (tv) that the 
Official. Trustee should render accounts since the time of the death of the 
settlor. 
The trial court decreed the suit but the first appellate oourt reversed 
the decree. In second appeal, the High Court restored the decree of the 
trial court. 
In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (I) Whether the settlor was 
entitled to execute the second trust deed; (2) Whether its validity was not 
open to challenge in view of the order on the originating summons, be-
cause, the Judge had jurisdiction to pass the order eit!'er under s. 34 of 
the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, ors. 10(1) of the Official Trustees Act, 
1913, or s. 43 of the Trustees and Mortgagees Powers Act, 1866, or in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE V. SACHINDRA NATH 
93 
A 
exercise of bis inherent powers; and (3) Whether the Official trustee was 
liable to render accounts and if so for what period. 
HELD : (I) The stipulation in the trust deed that the variation can 
only be made by will Gnd not otherwise is a binding condition. Being a 
material condition the settler bad no power to vary it and therefore had 
no power to execute the second trust deed. [98 Fl 
B 
Re : Anstis [1886] 31 Cb. D. 596; Reid V. Shergo/d (1805) 10 Ves. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
370 and Mo/ineux v. Evered, (1910) 2 Cb. 147, applied. 
Halsbury 3rd Edn. Vol. 30 p, 272, para. 518 and Hcnbury Modern 
Equity (7 Edn. p. 56), referred to. 
(2) Before a court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a parti-
cular matter it must not only have jurisdiction to try it but must also have 
the authority to decide the 
questions at 
issue 
and 
pass 
appropriate 
orders. It is not sufficient that it has some jurisdiction in relation to the 
subject-matter under the various provisions of law or under its inherent 
power. If the High Court had the power under those provision
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.