2009 (3) TMI 1023 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court to Reconsider Matter | Special Leave Petitions Returned | Expedite Case Disposal

Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan and Ors. Versus Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur and Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the matter afresh along with the pending appeal and miscellaneous applications. Special leave ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of clauses 9 and 10 of the Trust Deed.2. Validity of the proceedings under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act.3. Maintainability of civil revision petitions and appeals.4. Jurisdictional errors and principles of res judicata.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Clauses 9 and 10 of the Trust Deed:The primary dispute revolves around the interpretation of the terms 'Remaining Sons' Fund' and 'Remaining Daughters' Fund' as expressed in the Trust Deed. The appellants sought a direction to the trustees to execute the Trust Deed by giving the correct interpretation to clauses 9 to 11. The learned Judge found that the Settlor intended that even the children of a pre-deceased remaining son or daughter are entitled to a share in the unit allocated to the remaining son or daughter who died issueless. The High Court, however, applied a literal interpretation, holding that the intention of the settlor was not to allow the property to percolate to other successors except those specified.2. Validity of the Proceedings under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act:The appellants filed original petitions under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, seeking directions for the correct execution of the Trust Deed. The High Court held that the original petitions were not maintainable under Sections 56 and 61 of the Trusts Act and should have been filed under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code before the appropriate courts. The High Court opined that the trial court's decision on the preliminary issue in the suits was not questionable on the point of jurisdiction, but the original petitions were invalid for want of jurisdiction.3. Maintainability of Civil Revision Petitions and Appeals:The High Court held that the civil revision petitions filed against the order dated 21.07.1999 were not maintainable. The findings rendered in the order dated 21.07.1999 did not amount to a decree, and no appeal lay against a mere finding. The matter would have been different if a decree was formally recorded pursuant to the decision rendered. The High Court should not have entered into the merit of the matter once it found that the civil revision applications were not maintainable.4. Jurisdictional Errors and Principles of Res Judicata:The appellants argued that the High Court could not have entered into the merits of the matter as no appeal or civil revision application was filed against the common order passed in the original suits, and thus, the civil revision applications were barred by the principles of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court noted that an appeal from a final decree is maintainable and that the principle of res judicata would not apply as an appeal from the final decree could still be maintained. The Supreme Court also discussed the scope of jurisdictional errors, noting that taking into consideration any irrelevant fact or non-consideration of a relevant fact would involve jurisdictional issues.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should reconsider the matter afresh together with the pending appeal and miscellaneous applications. The special leave petitions filed against the order dated 21.07.1999 were to be returned to the petitioners to re-file the same before the High Court. The Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. No costs were awarded.