Once the civil revision applications were held to be number maintainable ordinarily the High Court should number have entered into the merit of the matter.
114 of 2000, was preferred thereagainst by the trustees.
2,22,99,200/ .
1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No.
1 also filed an original application before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court which was marked as Original Petition No.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, the respondents in C.A. Nos.
846 of 2001 and Respondent No.
This Court by an order dated 10.04.2000 issued numberices in the special leave petitions filed by the respondents.
A Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which was marked as CMP No.
A civil miscellaneous application has also been filed.
Forty similarly placed children of the deceased sons and daughters filed another suit which was marked as O.S. No.
Respondents having number filed any appeal or civil revision application against the order dated 3.04.2000 passed in the original suits filed by the appellants, the respondents would be deemed to have abandoned the remedies available to them.
The position is clear and both the petitions cannot be maintained under Section 56 and 61 of the Trusts Act The intention of the settler as discussed supra is number to allow the property to percolate to the other persons or to other successors either nearer or remoter except those specified As discussed by me supra, in the absence of the words specified in the schedule there should have been some scope for any interpretation, but in the presence of the words specified in the schedule, I do number think that there is any scope for any interpretation than the one, which is companysistent with the view taken by me aboveThe view taken by the companyrt below, for the above reasons, is number companyrect legal and proper and is, therefore, liable to be set aside PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT Appellants preferred Special Leave Petition Nos.
In the same year, some of the children of the remaining sons and daughters who predeceased those remaining sons and daughters who died issueless like the appellants herein filed a suit which was marked as O.S. No.
The dispute is with regard to the terms Remaining sons and Remaining Daughters Fund expressed in the Will.
The suit was number finally disposed of thereby.
173 of 1998 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad purported to be under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 praying for directions to the trustees to execute the trust deed as per the companyrect interpretation of clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the trust deed.
In the aforementioned suit, heirs and legal representatives of the grand children of the settler were impleaded as parties.
The findings rendered in the order dated 21.07.1999 did number amount to a decree.
The surviving remaining sons and daughter and persons shown in item 14 can only receive net income on the amount amalgamated to their units whereas the respective children of the deceased remaining sons and remaining daughters, as the case may be, are entitled to receive the total amount, companypus and accretions allocated to their respective father or mother as the case may be , as per direction given in clauses 9 e and 10 e of the trust Deed.
The aforementioned two original petitions as also the suits were taken up for hearing together.
It is true that preliminary issues were decided by an order dated 21.07.1999.
The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment held The impugned order is the companymon order passed in two O.Ps i.e., O.P. No.
No appeal lay against a mere finding.
The learned Judge issued the following directions This advice is given to the Trustees in OP 173/1998 and OP 253/1998 and this finding is given on preliminary point in OS 383/1998 and OS 540/1998 Indisputably, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said directions, numberdecree was prepared in the O.S. No.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction against the defendants and their successor trustees and secretary of the defendant number 1 Trust, as prayed for?
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21.07.1999, Respondent Nos.
383 of 1998 praying inter alia for the following reliefs Mandatory injunction against the Trustees to companyrectly interpret and apply the provisions of clause 8 of the Trust Deed by making all allocations and amalgamations of Trust funds companycerned therein including in the same all beneficiaries named in the parties 2 and 3 of III Schedule irrespective of whether they pre deceased the beneficiaries dying issueless or number, and thereafter allocate their shares to their legal heirs in accordance with law, Issue a perpetual injunction against the trustees restraining them mis interpreting or wrongly applying the provisions of clauses 8 to 10 of the Trust Deed, or Restraining the trustees from making allocations or amalgamations of Trust Funds companycerned and making any payments, without giving two weeks advance numberice to plaintiffs.
It is, however, number in dispute that as several other issues were framed including the additional issues, which we have numbericed hereinbefore, in terms whereof the suit was ultimately decreed by a judgment and order dated 3.04.2000, an appeal thereagainst has been filed.
However, the purported companymon order so far as it related to the preliminary issue in the two suits was number challenged.
Reliance in this behalf has been placed on C.V. Rajendran and Another v. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi 2002 7 SCC 447.
Respondent No.
847 of 2001 filed civil revision petitions before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
253 of 1998 and the two suits as preliminary issues.
In the said original petitions as also the said suits a preliminary question was raised as to whether the surviving remaining sons and daughters of the Settlor are alone entitled to the companypus allotted to the remaining sons and remaining daughters who died issueless.
540 of 1998.
It is also number in dispute that numberappeal was preferred against the order dated 3.04.2000.
114 of 2000 but it shall do so independently and uninfluenced by the judgment and order under challenge insofar as it deals with the merits.
Ornaments, articles of jewellary and antique pieces.
The High Court companyld number have entered into the merits of the matter as numberappeal or civil revision application having been filed against the companymon order passed in original suit Nos.
The 1950 Act underwent an amendment in the year 1951.
Concededly, the said appeal and the civil miscellaneous petition are pending.
4372 4373 of 2000 which came up for preliminary hearing on 27.03.2000, on which date a Division Bench of this Court ordered Adjourned for two weeks as learned senior companynsel for the respondents says that he wants to challenge the impugned order of the High Court so far their O.P. is held to be number maintainable.
348 and 540 of 1999, they attained finality and, thus, the civil revision applications filed against the order dated 21.07.1999 passed against the applications were barred by the principles of res judicata.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS The preliminary issue in O.S. No.
PROCEEDINGS Indisputably, the appellants filed an original petition No.
253 of 1998 seeking directions to the trustees to execute trust deed according to the terms companytained therein.
173 of 1998 and P. No.
It may be true that in terms of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure when an appeal against the final decree is passed, legality of the said order companyld be challenged in the appeal.
SUBMISSIONS Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would raise the following companytentions Whether in view of the fact that the civil revision applications were filed against the order dated 21.07.1999 passed in original applications which having been found to be number maintainable, the High Court should have held that the civil revision petitions were also number maintainable.
By an order dated 6.07.2000, the High Court directed that the aforementioned decree dated 3.04.2000 of the City Civil Court shall number be given effect to pending numberice.
The High Court opined that the civil revision applications filed against the order dated 21.07.1999 were number maintainable.
A decree was number passed pursuant to or in furtherance of the order dated 21.07.1999.
Indisputably, an appeal, which was marked as CCA No.
An appeal would be maintainable only when a decree is passed.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants and their successor trustees and secretary of the defendant number 1 Trust, as prayed for.
540 of 1998 having already been decided, the other issues framed therein which appeared to be companysequential in nature were determined by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court by an order dated 3.04.2000 decreeing the suit declaring that the plaintiffs have vested rights in the companypus and accretion of the remaining sons fund and remaining daughters fund.
2 in Civil Appeal No.
In the said suit, the following three issues were framed Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration in respect of the companypus fund as prayed for?
By an order dated 21.01.2000, special leave to appeal has been granted, observing pending the disposal of the appeal, the High companyrt may proceed to hear and dispose of CCA No.
540 of 1998 for declaration that they have vested rights in the companypus and accretion of the remaining sons fund to the extent of Rs.
846 847 filed special leave petitions against the order of the High Court and they upon grant of leave were marked as C.A. No.
B. SINHA, J INTRODUCTION The Nizam of Hyderabad executed a Trust Deed called H.E.H. The Nizams Jewellary Trust dated 29.3.1951 in respect of some of his private properties, precious gems, jewels.
11230 of 2000, has also been filed.
The matter might have been otherwise if a decree was to be recorded formally pursuant to the decision so rendered.
It was number companysidered to be even an order passed in terms of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
