9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Personal remedy versus charge under the compromise decree. 2. Attachability of Rajes' interest under the trust deed. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Personal Remedy versus Charge under the Compromise Decree The appellant contended that under the compromise decree, a charge was created over certain properties for the payment of a monthly allowance to the respondent, and thus, the personal remedy could only be pursued after exhausting the remedy by way of charge. The relevant clauses of the compromise decree were analyzed to determine the intention behind them. - Clause (c) of the compromise decree imposed a personal obligation on the plaintiffs to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 475 to the first defendant. - Clause (d) provided that the properties mentioned in the schedule were charged for the due payment of the monthly allowance, giving the decree-holder the liberty to realize the amount in default against the charged properties. - Clause (e) allowed the decree-holder to realize the amount in default by appointing a Receiver for execution over the charged properties. The court concluded that clause (c) gave an unqualified right to the decree-holder to obtain payment of the monthly allowance from the plaintiffs, while clauses (d) and (e) provided additional options but did not limit the right under clause (c). The court found that the intention was clear that the decree-holder was not obliged to resort to the charged properties first and could pursue the personal remedy concurrently. Issue 2: Attachability of Rajes' Interest under the Trust Deed The appellant argued that under the terms of the trust deed, Rajes had no attachable interest in the properties as his interest was contingent. The court examined whether the interest of Rajes was vested or contingent. - Clause 12 of the Trust Deed: The properties were to devolve on Rajes and Ramendra after the liquidation of all debts and the settlor's death. The court noted that the settlor's death was a certain event, but the discharge of debts was uncertain, potentially making the interest contingent. - Clause 3 imposed an obligation on the trustee to pay the settlor's debts. - Clause 5 limited the enjoyment of income by the settlor and his sons to specified amounts until the debts were paid. - Clause 12(a) provided that the surplus income of the properties would devolve on Rajes and Ramendra in the same way as the properties themselves, indicating that the properties were earmarked for them with restricted enjoyment until the debts were discharged. The court concluded that the entire income was to be applied for the benefit of the donees, and the restriction on the enjoyment of the income was to facilitate the discharge of debts. Therefore, the interest of Rajes was vested and not contingent. Specific Property: 44/2 Lansdowne Road The court also considered whether Rajes' interest in the specific property at 44/2 Lansdowne Road was different due to additional conditions in the trust deed. - Clause 12(c) provided that after the settlor's death and the discharge of debts, Rajes would become the absolute owner of the property upon purchasing a suitable house for Ramendra. - The court found that this clause imposed a further restriction on the enjoyment of the property but did not make the interest contingent. The trust would not come to an end for this property until the obligation to provide alternative accommodation was fulfilled. Conclusion The court dismissed the appeal, holding that: 1. The personal remedy under the compromise decree could be pursued without first exhausting the remedy by way of charge. 2. Rajes' interest under the trust deed was vested and not contingent, and thus attachable. 3. The specific property at 44/2 Lansdowne Road was subject to additional restrictions but did not render Rajes' interest contingent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
