Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Subbaiya Pandaram v. Mahamad Mustapha Maracayar (1), this is exactly what happened. In, the presence of the purchaser it was declared that the trust have been validly created and that the property was in fact a trust property. Their Lordships pointed out that "at the moment when the said decree was passed the possession of the property was adverse and the declaration that the property had been properly made subject to the trust disposition, and therefore ought not to have been seized, did not disturb or affect the quality of his possession ; it merely emphasised the fact that it was adverse. No further step was taken in consequence of that declaration until the present proceedings were instituted when it was too late." We would like to add that if for bringing back to the trust the properties improperly alienated by the trustees two suits are required to be filed we apprehend that the second suit by the newly appointed trustee for obtaining possession of the properties would almost always be too late, and so s. 63 cannot be read as exhaustively dealing with all the remedies available to the beneficiary. We must, therefore, reject the argument that the suit for possession in the form in which the prayer has been made by the plaintiffs is incompetent.

through each other. Where s. 11 is the thus inapplicable it would not be permissible to rely upon the general doctrine of res judicata. We are dealing with a suit and the only ground on which res judicata can be urged against such a suit can be the provisions of s. 11 and no other. In our opinion therefore, there is no substance in the ground that the present suit is barred by res judicata.

The next question which falls to be considered is the most important question in these appeals. We have already seen that three trustees were appointed under the trust deed executed by defendants 1 to 6 and two of the impugned sale deeds have been executed by only two out of the said three trustees. The Courts below have held that two out of the three trustees could not convey a valid title and so on that ground alone the two transfers are invalid. It is urged before us that this conclusion is not justified on a fair and reasonable construction of cl. 23 of the trust deed. Be. fore considering this point it is necessary to state the legal position in the matter under the Trusts Act.

In support of the validity of these transfers an alternative argument has been urged before US. It is pointed out that according to Lewin on Trusts, if the act to the two trustees has been done with the sanction and approval of the third trustee then it may be regarded as an act of the three trustees, and it is urged that in the present case the third trustee had consented and shown his approval to the transactions in question. The two sale deeds have been executed by defendant 7 and Veerabahu (6) [1944] L. R. 72 T. A. 39.

"Whatever may be the reason it is certain that Narayana Pillai was not a consenting party to the transaction and there being no other evidence by way of minutes of any meeting of the trustees had decided with the knowledge of Narayana Pillai, though he had dissented, we are unable to hold that there has been such a decision of the majority as would bind the dissenting trustee". It does appear the original draft of Ex. B-94 was made on the assumption that all the trustees would join in the execution of the document but the hope and anticipation formed by the two trustees was believed and so the document was ultimately executed by two of them without Narayana Pillai joining. We have considered the evidence to which our attention was invited in this connection, and we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion recorded by the Courts below that Narayana Pillai was not a consenting party to the transfer in question. 'that being so, the alternative ground made in support of Ex. B-94 fails. If the transfers in favour of defendant 14 (Ex. B-94) as well as Ex;. B-37 in favour of defendant 13 fail on this ground it is really not necessary to consider the further question as to whether both the said transfers were effected for grossly inadequate consideration.