1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by some of the heirs of the founders of a private debuttar trust for the framing of a scheme for the preservation and management of the debuttar estate on the allegation of mismanagement and maladministration. The other heirs of the founders did not join the plaintiffs in the suit. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit of the nature and it held also that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of that kind, and, on these findings, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could maintain the suit, but, holding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction, upheld the decree of the Court of first instance. Against that decision the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.
2. It appears that according to the admitted and established facts in the present case the trust that was created was a private debuttar trust. Now the question is whether in a case of this nature, namely, a case of private trust like the present one, a civil Court has got any jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the management and administration of the debuttar property. That the civil Court has such jurisdiction would appear clearly from the observations of the learned Judges in the case of Monohar Mukherji v. Raja Peary Mohan Mukherji . [1919] 54 I.C 6.. The observations run in these words:
“We are of opinion that on the analogy of this well-recognized principle the view may be maintained that in respect of a debuttar in this country, the founder or his heirs may invoke the assistance of a judicial tribunal for the proper administration thereof on the allegation that the trusts are not properly performed.”
3. A question however may arise that all the heirs of the founders did not institute the suit. But it appears that the heirs who did not join the plaintiffs in the institution of the suit were all served with notices and it appears also that, with the exception of one who, again, it may be noted, has not opposed the appeal, they did not appear to oppose the prayer made by the plaintiffs.
4. Under these circumstances it may be reasonably presumed that these heirs of the founders who did not join the plaintiffs have no objection to the prayer of the plaintiffs being granted. Following therefore the dictum of Mookerjee, J., in the case of Monohar Mukherji v. Raja Peary Mohan Mukherji, we hold, disagreeing with the learned Additional District Judge, that the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the prayer made by the plaintiffs in their suit.
5. That being so, the appeal must be allowed and the Court of first instance will be directed to frame a scheme for the preservation and management of the debuttar estate. We make no order as to costs as there was no opposition in the appeal.
P.N/R.K
6. Appeal allowed.
Comments