M/S Julien Educational Trust vs Sourendra Kumar Roy & Ors

2. The appellant herein, Julien Educational Trust, claims to be a benevolent trust created by a registered Deed of Trust dated 30.07.1970 for the purpose of encouraging education and other allied activities. It claims to be registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and has its registered office at 35E, Elgin Road, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020. The appellant runs a reputed school, known as Julien Day School, at premises No. 4, Umananda Road and 35E, Elgin Road, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata- 700020, which are two adjacent premises. The respondents are the joint owners of 15 Cottahs 8 Chittaks 29 square feet of land, including a three- storied old dilapidated structure and garage and outhouses constructed thereon, being premises No. 3/1, Heysham Road, Police Station Bhowanipore, Kolkata.

3. Since the said land was adjacent to the school premises, the appellant Trust was interested in purchasing the same for the purpose of expansion of the school. Pursuant thereto, the appellant Trust entered into negotiations with the Respondents for purchase of the property, which was orally accepted by the Respondents jointly and serverally and the parties agreed that the sale transactions would be completed in the follwing manner:-

5. The appellant also applied to the Inspector General and Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, West Bengal, on 21st June, 2006, for exemption from payment of stamp duty in registering the Deeds of Conveyance in respect of the suit property. According to the appellant, the respondent No.1 approved the draft Deed of Conveyance sent to him by putting his signatures thereon, subject to some rectifications made by him in the said draft. Thereafter, the final Deed of Conveyance in respect of the share of the Respondent No.1 was engrossed on stamp paper on 22nd June, 2006, but the said respondent did not execute and register the same on the plea that in order to avoid controversies amongst all the co-sharers, all the deeds of conveyance should be executed simultaneously. Soon thereafter, the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 also approved their respective draft Deeds of Conveyance which were also engrossed on stamp paper, but again the same could not be executed and registered as the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 delayed giving their approval to the draft Coneyance Deeds sent to them.

6. On the other hand, the appellant Trust came to learn in the second week of January, 2007, that the respondents were preparing to sell the suit property to third parties. The appellant, thereupon, filed an application under Section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the First Executive Magistrate, at Alipore, being M.P. Case No. 82 of 2007, where an order was passed on 17th January, 2007 directing the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to see that no untoward incident was perpetrated by the respondents on the suit premises. In addition to the above, the appellant also filed a suit for specific performance, being Title Suit No. 10 of 2007, in the Court of the 4th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

14. Since the suit for specific performance is pending before the trial Court, we can consider the materials before us and the arguments advanced only for the limited purpose of deciding the question of granting interim orders during the pendency of the suit.

16. Although, it has been submitted by Mr. Nariman as well as Mr. Bandopadhyaya that loss, if any, to the appellant Trust could be compensated in terms of money, the said submission does not appear to hold good in the instant case. Equally important is the question of balance of convenience and inconvenience since the principal object of the appellant Trust in wanting to acquire the suit property was to extend its school unit at Kolkata. If the suit property is allowed to be commercially exploited by raising multi-storyed structures thereupon, the entire object of the suit filed by the appellant Trust will be rendered meaningless and the purpose for which the suit been filed would be completely defeated.

17. In such circumstances, we are of the view that this is one such case where an interim order is required to be passed to maintain the status quo of the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant Trust, but at the same time appropriate directions should also be given so that the suit is disposed of expeditiously. At this stage, it would not be appropriate on our part to express any further opinion on the merits and demerits of the suits.

18. Having found a prima facie case in favour of the appellant Trust, it is our view that in the light of the principles of balance of convenience and inconvenience, interim relief should be granted to the appellant Trust. Accordingly, we allow the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the respondents shall not alienate or encumber the suit property or change the nature and character thereof till the disposal of the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant Trust.

19. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, we would also request the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible, but positively within one year from the date of communication of this order. No unnecessary adjournments will be sought for or granted, so that the suit is disposed of within the stipulated period.

20. We also make it clear that the observations made in this judgment have been made only for the purpose of disposal of the application for interim orders and should not influence the Trial Court in deciding the suit.

21. There will be no order as to costs.