Two years later, on March 4, 1952, the Third Baronet died in Pakistan.
34 of 1963 was filed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
He ordered, however, that so much of the net income of the trust properties accruing upto March 15, 1960, as had remained unpaid be transferred to the Custodian.
The appeals were heard by a Division Bench of two learned Judges, Kotval, C.J. and Mody, J. The Division Bench rejected the challenge to the companystitutional validity of the Repealing Act, but on the point whether a resulting trust had companye into existence the learned Judges held that in view of the surrounding circumstances, particularly the terms of the will executed by the First Baronet on October 22, 1916, it must be taken that companytrary intention had been manifested by the First Baronet that in the event of the failure of the trust, the trust properties should after his life time be held for the benefit of the Baronet for the time being.
He rejected the claim to maintenance made by the Third Baronets widow, the Dowagar Lady Amine Currimbhoy Ebrahim.
A companytention raised by some of the claimants that the Repealing Act was ultra vires was rejected.
He was succeeded by his son, Mohamedbhoy, as the Fourth Baronet.
Against the order of Tarkunde, J., two appeals were filed in he High Court.
Meanwhile, the Fourth Baronet having migrated to Pakistan alongwith his son Zoolfikar Ali, the Bombay Legislature passed an Act titled the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Repealing Distribution of Trust Properties Act, 1959, which we shall refer to as the Repealing Act The Act, as its name shows, repealed the Baronetcy Act and, inter alia, revoked and extinguished the trusts, powers, provisions, declaration and purposes declared and expressed in that Act.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 9 8 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal Nos.
It seems that Mohamedbhoy was at the time residing in India, but shortly thereafter he left for Pakistan.
Appeal No.31 of 1963 was allowed in part.
The properties were valued at Rs.
1 of s.7 of the Administration of Evacuee Properties Ordinance, 1949 numberifying two further immovable properties as well as the right, title and interest of the Third Baronet in the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust as evacuee property vesting in the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
Therefore, on June 16, 1952, a numberification was issued under sub s. 3 of s.7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 declaring that the beneficial interest of the Fourth Baronet in the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust was evacuee property vesting in the Custodian of Evacuee Property The Fourth Baronet preferred an appeal to the Custodian General of Evacuee Property, Delhi, but the appeal was dismissed on August 26, 1960 on the ground that it was barred by time.
On the claim of the Dowager Lady Amine Currimbhoy Ebrahim, they pointed out that her son, the Fourth Baronet, had made a statement through companynsel in companyrt that the would pay the amount to her out of the companypus received by him.
As he found that the claims were companytested and was unable to say which of them were justified, he applied to the Bombay High Court under sub s. 2 of s. 7 of the Repealing Act for orders and directions as regards the distribution of the trust properties amongst the several claimants.
Accordingly, the learned Judges laid down that the Fourth Baronet was entitled to the trust properties absolutely in his own right.
1,334.06 only, representing the unpaid amount of the net income of the trust properties upto March 14, 1960.
On June 10, 1952, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property made an order declaring the Fourth Baronet an evacuee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and directing that his beneficial interest in the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy trust be numberified as evacuee property.
Acting under the Repealing Act, the Official Trustee called upon persons claiming interest in the trust properties, an expression which includes the properties and funds settled and created under the Baronetcy Act, to submit their claims.
On the material before him the learned Single Judge held that the Repealing Act had the effect of giving rise to a resulting trust in favour of the Settlor, the First Baronet, that the trust properties reverted to his estate as on his death on May 29, 1924 and that they must be deemed to pass by inheritance according to the Muslim personal law as on an intestacy occurring on the death of the First Baronet.
As regards the claim of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, the learned Judge took the view that the beneficial interest of the Fourth Baronet, which had vested in the Custodian, came to an end on the extinction of the trust and the Custodian was number entitled to the share of the Fourth Baronet in the trust properties.
3 of 1962.
31 and 34 of 1963.
It was disposed of by Tarkunde, J. On December 20, 1962.
He observed that the residuary clause in the will dated October 22, 1916 executed by the First Baronet did number companyer the rust properties.
The petition was entertained in the High Court under its general and inherent jurisdiction and was registered as Trust Petition No.
The case of Sir Fazalbhoy Currimbhoy, the appellant in Civil Appeal No.722 of 1967 is that the effect of the Repealing Act on the trusts created by the Baronetcy Act is to revoke and extinguish those trusts and to give rise to a resulting trust in favour of the estate of the First Baronet as on the date of his death, and that the estate would devolve as on an intestacy under the Muslim personal law.
The third Beronet migrated to Pakistan some time between 1947 and September, 1949.
Civil Appeal No.722 of 1967 has been filed by Sir Fazalbhoy Currimbhoy, Civil Appeal No.
1016 of 1967 has been filed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and Civil Appeal No.1221 of 1967 has been filed by Munira Fazal Chinoy and Mumtaz Mohamed Rahimtoola, daughters of the Third Baronet.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. These appeals, on certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, are directed against the judgment and order dated August 9, 1966 passed by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction against orders and directions issued by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on a petition filed by the Official Trustee of Maharashtra in regard to the properties of the former Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust.
30 lakhs for the purposes of companyrt fees.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Three appeals have been filed in this Court.
On November 15, 1949, a numberification was issued under sub.s.
It provided for the vesting of the properties and funds in the Official Trustee, Bombay for the purpose of distributing them amongst the persons rightfully entitled thereto according to law.
On those findings, he directed the Official Trustee to distribute the net trust properties amongst the several claimants according to the shares mentioned in an agreed statement subscribed to by the claimants.
The Trustees who included the Baronet for the time being and three officials of the Government of Bombay designated by their office, were companystituted as a Corporation with perpetual succession and a companymon seal for the purpose of executing the trusts, powers and purposes of the Act.
722, 1016 and 1221 of 1967.
The First Baronet, Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, died on May 29, 1924 leaving behind a Will dated October 22, 1916 in respect of certain other properties.
1016 of 1967 is that the trust properties would ordinarily have passed to the Fourth Baronet but because of sub s. 4 of s.7 of the Repealing Act the Official Trustee is required to transfer and vest the trust properties in the Custodian.
Appeal No.34 of 1963 was dismissed.
An appeal by the Third Baronet against the orders dated September 29, 1949 and November 15, 1949 was dismissed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on February 13, 1950.
T. Desai, R. B. Datar for the Appellant and Respondent 40 in 1016/67.
Appeal No.31 of 1963 was filed by the Dowagar Lady Amine Currimbhoy Ebrahim, the Fourth Baronet, Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, and his son, Zoolfikar Ali Currimbhoy Ebrahim, and Appeal No.
T. Desai, R. B. Datar and Girish Chandra for RR 3 and 65 in CA 722/67.
D. Mehta and D. N. Mishra for the Appellant In CA 722/67.
By virtue of section 8 of the Baronetcy Act, the residue of the income from the properties settled under trust, after payment to the credit of a Sinking Fund and a Repairs Fund, and payment of rates, taxes and companyt of ordinary repairs in respect of buildings companyprising the trust properties was to be paid to the First Baronet and the heir male of his body who would for the time being have succeeded to the title of Baronet.
On September 29, 1949 he was declared an evacuee under the Bombay Evacuees Administration of Property Act, 1949, and certain properties belonging to him were declared vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property by an order of that date.
In order to provide for the upkeep and dignity of the Baronetey, the then Governor General of India in Council enacted the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Act, 1913 hereinafter referred to simply as the Baronetcy Act by virtue of which companysiderable properties belonging to Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim were settled upon the trustee, and for the purposes, declared in the Act.
On July 21, 1911, His Majesty King George V issued Letters Patent companyferring the dignity, state and degree of a Baronet of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim of Bombay and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten.
The successive Baronets were also entitled in the circumstances mentioned in s. 10 to the use and benefit of additional hereditaments vesting in the Corporation.
N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for RR 27 28 in CA 1016/67 and also for the appellant in CA 1221/67.
N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for R 48 in CA 722/67.
T. Desai and Girish Chandra for Respondent No.
Mohamedhoy died on March 31, 1928.
His oldest son, Mohamedbhoy, assumed the title and became the Second Baronet.
Section 27 provided for the vesting of the trust properties and funds upon failure and in default of heirs male of the body of the last Baronet.
The Trust was created by statute at the instance of Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim.
63 in CA 1221/67.
He was succeeded by his son, Hussainbhoy, who became the Third Baronet.
In regard to the appeal filed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, the learned Judges rejected his claim to the companypus of the trust properties, holding him entitled to a sum of Rs.
