RAJES KANTA ROY versus SANTI DEBI

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 19-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS, BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
77 
failed to provide the proper procedure for taking of the 
steps 
hereinabove indicated for finalising the electoral 
roll of ~he Municipality. If that was the true position 
the electoral roll of the Municipality which had been 
authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner 
on August 8, 1955, was certainly not an electoral roll 
prepared in accordance with law on the basis of which 
the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee 
could be held either on September 9, 1955, or at any 
time thereafter. 
In the view which we hold, it is not necessary to 
consider whether, in the event of an inconsistency 
between s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the Regulation and the 
Rules framed by the Chief Commissioner in exercise of 
the power conferred under s. 43 of the Regulation, the 
section would prevail or the Rules. 
Suffice it to say 
that the electoral roll of the Ajmer Municipality which 
was authenticated and published by the Chief Com-
missioner on August 8, 1955, was not in conformity 
with the provisions of s. 30, sub-s. (2), and the relevant 
provisions of the Regulation and could not form the 
basis of any valid elections to be held to the Ajmer 
Municipal Committee. 
Under the circuP1;,tances we see no substance in the 
appeal and dismiss tb.e same. There will be, however, 
no order as to costs of the appeal in so far as the 
respondent has not appeared and contested the appeal 
before us. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RA JES KANT A ROY 
fJ. 
SANTI DEBI 
(JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. S1NHA and }AFER IMAM, JJ.) 
Trust deed-Construction-Vested interest or contingent interest 
-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), ss. 19, 21-Attach-
able interest-Execution of decree-Compromise decree providing for 
a personal remedy and a charge-Whether personal remedy could be 
pursued in the first instance. 
1956 
Chief ConwW-
sioner 4frM' 
v. 
Ratlliey 
Shyam 
Dani 
Bhllgwati J, 
Novemh<T 19 
1956 
llajts ](- lll!J 
•• 
Sa.Ii Debi 
78 
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
A settlor executed a deed of trust in respect of all his pr<>-
perties whereby he n1ade arrangements for the discharge of his. 
debts and for the devolution of the ,eroperty on his sons. The 
provisions of the deed showed that (I ) specified lots of property 
were allotted to each of his two sons, (2) the present income was 
to be applied for the discharge of the debts after payment of 
specified sums of money therefrom by way of monthly payments 
to the setdor and his sons and (3) in the event of any of the sons 
dying before the termination of the trust, his interest in the 
monthly payments aforesaid was to devolve on his heirs. It was 
also provided that a house, L, included in the lots allotted to the 
elder son (appellant) was to be subject to the right of residence of 
the second son, and his heirs until a suitable house was purchased 
by the appellant or his heirs and n1ade over to him. Finally it 
was provided that on the liquidation of the debts and after the 
death of the settler the trust was to co1ne to an end and the· 
respective · lots of property including the surplus income thereof 
were to devolve on the appellant and his brother or their heirs~ 
Some time after the execution of the deed the settlor died. 
It was 
contended for the appellant that under the terms of the deed of 
trust his interest in the properties allotted to . him 
was 
only 
contingerit on the payment of the debts of the settlor and the 
discharge of the obligation to provide alternative accommodation 
to his brother and consequently his interest could not be attached 
in execution of a decree. 
Held, that the appellant had a vested interest but the enjoy-
rucnt of the properties was restricted so long as the debts were 
not discharged, and as regards the house, L, enjoymefit was 
further restricted to the extent that it was subject to the right 
of residence of his brother and his heirs until the obligation to 
provide alternative accommodation was discharged by the appd· 
lant or his heirs. 
Where a compron1ise decree provides both for a personal 
remedy and a charge, 
the question whether the decree-holder 
can 
pursue the personal remedy while reserving the remedy 
under the charge depends on the intention to be gathered from 
the terms of the decree. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 35 
of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated March 10, 1952, of the Calcutta High Court 
in appeal from the Original Ord

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