Manamatha Nath Ghosh & Anr. vs Ramkrishna Das & Ors.

By a registered Deed of Settlement / Dedication dated 8th May 1940, one Kusum Kumar Dassi (since deceased) created a Trust for making provisions of seva-puja of the deity Sree Sree Bansibadan Radhakrishna Jieu. The plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are presently Trustees of the said Trust. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 appear to have been appointed as Managing Trustees by a resolution dated 11th February 2018. Disputes arose with regard to the functioning of the said Trust. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are mismanaging the Trust fund. It is alleged that the defendant Trustees are not disclosing the accounts and have entered into clandestine transactions which are detrimental to the interest of the Trust.

Some instances of such mismanagement are mentioned in paragraph 27 of the petition. It is alleged that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not furnishing accounts of the Trust and it is now necessary that a Special Officer may be appointed to inspect Premises No. 23, Prem Chand Boral Street, Kolkata - 700012 and submit a report as to the condition and structure of the said premises, the occupants of the said premises and the rents paid by such occupants till date.

Mr. Mainak Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Trustees has produced the Minute Book of the Trust and submits that the plaintiffs have not disclosed that on 11th February 2018, the plaintiff No. 1 was appointed as one of the Managing Trustees along with the respondent No. 3 and all steps and measures are taken by the said Managing Trustees in consultation with the other members of the Trust. It is submitted that the allegations mentioned in paragraph 27 of the petition are stale as this issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench where the parties have filed a compromise petition and such compromise petition was allowed. The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 14th December 2010 and the report of the Special Officer which forms part of the record of the Appeal Court are produced before this court. Mr. Bose has drawn attention of this court that the Division Bench, upon consideration of the fact that one of the Trust properties have been let out to respondent No. 4 at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-, has allowed the compromise. These facts, according to Mr. Bose, are relevant and should have been disclosed by the plaintiffs. However, insofar the allegations made in paragraph 29 of the petition with regard to mismanagement, it is submitted that such allegations are motivated and if an opportunity is given to the respondents, the respondents will be in a position to demonstrate the falsity of such allegations.

On consideration of the documents produced by the respondents, it appears that the plaintiff No. 1 is one of the Managing Trustees and it is expected that he should be aware of all the transactions including the past transactions. The allegations made in paragraph 27 of the petition appear to be stale at this stage as one of the allegations in respect of one flat formed part of the record in an appeal heard by the Division Bench and it is an admitted position that the parties to the suit have compromised their disputes in the said proceedings. However, in respect of the allegations made in paragraph 29 of the petition, it needs to be assessed after exchange of affidavits. However, the Trustees are required to act jointly and for the benefit of the Trust. The Trust properties cannot be alienated and/or encumbered without the leave of the court. Mr. Bose has submitted that the Trustees are not in contemplation of alienating and/or disposing of any of the properties mentioned in paragraph 29 of the petition.

In such view of the matter, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (e) of the petition. In the affidavit in opposition to be filed by the respondents, the respondents shall make full disclosure of the conditions and structure of the premises, name of the occupants of the said premises and the rents that are collected from such occupants from February 2018 till date. Affidavit in opposition shall be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within 10 days thereafter. The matter shall appear under the heading 'Motion Adjourned' six weeks hence.