RAJESH KANTA ROY V SHANTI DEBI, AIR 1957 SC 255
FACTS
- The facts of the case have been that one Ramani Kanta Roy executed a registered trust deed in respect of his properties.
- The eldest son Rajes Kanta Roy was appointed the sole trustee to hold the properties under trust subject to certain powers and obligations. After the execution of the said deed Ramani Kanta died.
Clause 12 of the deed was the main under which Rajesh Kanta and his brother Ramandra Kanta Roy got any interest in the properties. This clause showed that Lots, I to IV of the properties ultimately went to Rajes and Lot V alone went to Ramendra. But the interest which either of them was to get in the properties allotted to each was expressed to be one which cach would get after the termination of the trust.
- It was only after the happening of two events viz.
- the discharge of all the debts specified in the schedule including the debts if any which might be incurred by the trustee for the payment of settlor's debts, and
- the death of the settler himself, that the trust was to come to an end, it was on coming to an end of the trust that the sons were to get the properties allotted to them.
HELD
- The Supreme Court held that the interest taken by the two brothers under trust deed were as vested and not as contingent.
- It was held that while the settler attached considerable importance to the liquidation of debts there was nothing to show that he was apprehensive that the debts would remain undischarged out of his properties and its income and that he contemplated the ultimate discharge of his debts to be such an uncertain event as not to derive him to make the accrual of the interest to his sons under the deed to depend upon the event of the actual discharge of his debts.
- The balance of the income which was meant to be applied for the discharge of the debts was, also an application of the income for the benefit of the donees.
- The entire scheme of the trust deed was delineated by court as:
(1) Specified lots were earmarked for each of the two sons
(2) The present income out of those lots were to be applied for the discharge of the debts
(3) Any surplus remaining out of the Income of each of the lots were to go to the very person to whom the corpus of the lot belonged
(4) In the event of any of the two sons dying before the termination of the trust his interest in the monthly payments out of the on income was to devolve on his heirs.
- These arrangements taken together clearly indicated that what was postponed was not the very vesting of the property in the lots themselves but that the enjoyment of the income thereof was burdened with certain monthly payments and with the obligation of discharge debts there from notionally pro-rata, all of which taken together constituted application of the income for the benefit of the two sons.
- Therefore the interest taken by two sons under the trust deed was vested and not contingent.