Introduction

• This landmark case deals with the concept of vested interest and contingent interest under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

Facts

• Ramani Kanta Roy, who owned substantial properties, had three sons: Rajes Kanta Roy, Rabindra Kanta Roy, and Ramendra Kanta Roy.
• Rabindra Kanta Roy passed away childless in 1938, leaving behind his widow, Santi Debi.
• In 1934, Ramani created an endowment for some of his properties in favor of the family deity, appointing his three sons as shebaits.
• After Rabindra's death, Santi Debi initiated a suit in 1941 claiming her right as a coshebait, which was later settled by a compromise.
• In 1944, Ramani and his sons filed a suit against Santi Debi, challenging the previous compromise decree because her marriage with Rabindra was void.
• During this lawsuit, Ramani executed a trust deed in 1945, appointing Rajes as the sole trustee of his entire properties.
• Ramani passed away at an unspecified date after executing the trust deed.
• The lawsuit against Santi Debi was compromised in 1946, where she agreed to receive a monthly allowance for life, which was defaulted on after February 1948.
• Santi Debi filed for execution of the decree in 1949 to recover arrears of her monthly allowance from March 1948 to July 1949.
• Rajes objected to the execution, claiming that Santi Debi could not proceed against the attached properties as per the terms of the compromise decree and that his interest in the attached property was only that of a trustee, not liable for attachment.

Issues Involved

• Whether the terms of the compromise decree allow Santi Debi to execute against the attached properties while retaining her right to the monthly allowance?
• Whether the appellant's interest in the attached property is contingent interest or vested interest, and if contingent, whether it is subject to attachment in execution proceedings?

Observation

• The court carefully examined the intricate provisions of the trust deed in question regarding the Bharatkhali property and premises No. 44/2, Lansdowne Road.
• It addressed objections raised concerning the lack of an executable decree and the nature of the interest held by Rajes under the trust deed.
• The court noted that while the compromise decree did not explicitly lay out directions for payment, it unequivocally intended for the plaintiffs to meet their obligations to the defendant.
• Regarding the nature of Rajes' interest, the court found it to be vested interest, not contingent interest, in both the general properties and premises.
• It reasoned that despite restrictions on enjoyment until certain conditions were met, Rajes held a vested interest title.

Conclusion

• The court dismissed objections to execution based on the alleged contingency of Rajes' interest and the need to exhaust charged properties first, affirming the execution process while leaving open any further legal matters arising from the trust deed's provisions.