Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. As observed by the Subordinate Judge, respondents 1 to 3 had notice of appellant's claim under Exhibits C and L, and the charge created by B-1 became, therefore, enforcible against them also when they took Rs. 28,600. Though they claimed a priority by reason of attachment, the Subordinate Judge adhered to the opinion which he expressed in C-2, viz., that they had no proper lien, and his decision on this point is not seriously questioned before us. The Subordinate Judge considers, however, that Rs. 28,600 represented a charity-fund, and that it was not open to the appellant to question its transfer to respondents 1 to 3 by respondents 4 to 6, the trustees of that fund, and that after such transfer, he could only proceed against the property substituted for it by the compromise II. To this compromise the appellant was not a party, and it was made against his will and to his prejudice. Such being the case, the Subordinate Judge is clearly in error in holding that the transfer is binding on the appellant and defeats his prior charge on the amount in deposit. The Subordinate Judge observes further that Rs. 28,600 was judicially recognized as charity money There was no specific issue raised on this point, and if we considered it necessary to determine that question for the purposes of this suit, we would remit an issue for trial. But we are of opinion that even assuming that Rs. 28,600 represented a charity-fund, the charge created by document B-1 is not inoperative. The Subordinate Judge himself considers that but for the advance made under B-1 by the appellant and the prosecution of Appeal No. 84 of 1886, Father Laberthere would not have had to pay into Court Rs. 44,000 and odd and that the fund out of which Rs. 28,600 was paid out for charity could not have come into existence. He, therefore, holds that the appellant might have had a lien by analogy to salvage lien, but refuses to enforce it on the ground that the appellant made his advance as a matter of speculation and had no interest in making it and that his claim was restricted to the property substituted for it under Exhibit II. In his order C-2, he discussed the question whether agreement B-1 was champertous and came to the conclusion that it was not, and to that conclusion he adheres in his judgment in the present suit. This being so, we do not consider that he is warranted in holding that the transaction is inoperative for the purpose of creating a lien on a fund which might never have been recovered but for that transaction. Neither do we see our way to support his conclusion that the property substituted for Rs. 28,600 by Exhibit II is the one against which the appellant ought to have proceeded. The appellant was no party to that document; it was entered into with the knowledge of his claim against his will and to his prejudice, and it cannot, therefore, defeat any prior claim which he had on Rs. 28,600 and transfer it to some other property. There is nothing to show that the one-third share in the Achampattu village which respondents 4 to 6 released from the charge they had upon it for the amount of the decree in their favour in Original Suit No. 12 of 1882 was as good a security as the fund in Court. It was not a band fide investment of a trust fund for the benefit of the charity but it was the appropriation of a charity-fund to the payment of the private debts of respondents 4 to 6. There is no analogy between such appropriation and the investment of a charity-fund in a bank. The appellant's claim to a charge upon the fund paid into Court by Father Laberthere and paid out to the first three respondents at the instance of the others, must be upheld.