Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. There is nothing to show that these two latter beneficiaries were in any way connected with the settlor or had any claim upon his bounty. The provision thus made for them was, as far as can be seen, a voluntary gratuitous gift. It is plain that the property thus put in trust by this deed was all the property the settlor would have been entitled to as hair of the deceased Maharajah had there been no adoption of the tenant for life, or had that adoption been invalid. Each one of these three beneficiaries, the settlor and respondents Nos.5 and 6, had interests in the litigation identical in character though not in equal value, in this sense that each would gain his share if the suit should succeed, and each would lose everything if it should fail. In addition, powers were, by the trust deed, conferred upon the trustee and upon the settlor respectively, which were both wide and important. The words conferring them run thus:--

9. The contemplated suit was, on July 13, 1903, commenced in the District Court of Vizagapatam. Its number in that Court was O.S. No. 18 of 190. The plaintiffs in it were the original trustee and the three beneficiaries, namely, the settlor as to fifteen-sixteenths of the trust property and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as to one-sixteenth of it. These three beneficiaries were the absolute owners in equity of the trust estate if the adoption proved invalid The relief prayed for was (1) that it might be declared that the settlor, as the nearest heir of the late Maharajah, was entitled to the vested remainder in the estate of Vizianagram after the demise of the present zemindar (i. e., the tenant for life). The settlor and these two beneficiaries were therefore in the position of joint adventurers in this litigation, in which success would bring much gain for each, and failure absolute and complete loss to each. The efforts these adventurers made to obtain the necessary funds to prosecute the suit, of which they themselves wore entirely destitute and were unable to supply, are detailed by the witness Lakshmi, the private secretary of the Rajah of Tuni, from whom the necessary funds were ultimately obtained. The evidence of this witness, which, save as to one matter to be mentioned presently, is practically uncontradicted, is of the utmost importance. He said a body of people came to have an interview with the Rajah of Tuni, his master. That the original trustee, the settlor, and two beneficiaries, respondents Nos. 5 and 6, and the two sons of the settlor, were members of this body, that they asked the Rajah of Tuni to help them in the suit O.S. No. 18 of 1903, in the Vizagapatam District Court, that they represented that other persons who had promised to assist them had failed them, that a vakil then named (since deseased) had told them that the settlor had a good case, represented that unless the Rajah of Tuni advanced money to finance the suit the settlor would lose it, and that if he succeeded in the suit the Rajah of Tuni would gain as well as the whole Kshatriya community. That the original trustee and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 joined in making these requests, they were asked to sign the (sic.) agreement. The trustee said the second defendant (i. e., the settlor) was a poor man, that he was plaintiff in the suit, that they were conducting the litigation for him; that fearing Chat he might collude with the Vizianagram estate, they got the trust deed, and so (i. e., in consequence) the settlor only must enter into the agreement and that a draft of Exhibit A (i. e., the agreement of May 22, 1906) was produced, but the witness does not know who drew it. These two beneficiaries, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in the present suit, filed, on July 21, 1913, two written statements. They are identical in terms. They both deny that they had anything to do with the negotiations which lead up to the agreement of May 22, 1906, or with those which lead up to that of August 14, 1907. As to the first of these negotiations, they do not specifically deny a single statement deposed by the witness Lakshmi, who knew them all, the original trustee, the settlor, his two sons, Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Nos. 5 and 6 and said they all came to his master in a body.

11. Upon this supposition it is well to consider what was in reality the true nature and effect of the arrangement come to by all the parties concerned on the occasion of this visit to the Rajah of Tuni. The suit recently started dealt with the whole trust property. The negotiation to have such a suit financed necessarily dealt with the whole trust property. The settlor could, prima facie, by signing the agreement for himself alone only bind his own interest in the trust property. That would not have sufficed, and therefore when, of the three beneficiaries only one signed the agreement designed, to affect the whole trust property and by its very terms did so, this one must, in the circumstances already detailed, have signed it not only for himself, in his own right, but as agent, accredited in that behalf, of his co-beneficiaries. In all the transactions which succeeded, the advancing of the money, the accounting for the money, and the direction of the steps to be taken in the suit, the two beneficiaries do not appear to have taken any independent or active part. From May 1906, onward, the settlor was regarded as the manager the dominus litis in the whole business. He was never removed from his position, his authority to act as the agent of his co-beneficiaries never questioned or withdrawn. These two co-beneficiaries of the settlor make in their written statements, the case that they are not parties to the agreement of May 22, 1906, or that of August 14, 1907, and are therefore not bound by either. If by this they mean that they have not each by his own hand signed and thus executed them, it is true; but if it means that those agreements were not signed by the settlor as the accredited agent of his co-beneficiaries and on their behalf, it is, in their Lordships' view, quite untrue. As this point was never made until over Rs. 1,00,000 had been advanced by the Rajah to finance the suit, in which they were co-plaintiffs, it is in addition dishonest.