Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Two points have been raised before us by the appellant in this case: (1) that Exhibit A, the muchilika given by the plaintiff, is not valid as, it was agreed to only by one of the trustees of the plaint temple and not by the other; (2) that the defendant has a monthly tenancy apart from the lease, Exhibit II and that it has not been properly terminated, as the notice to quit given to him was not by his lessors or on their behalf but by the plaintiff himself and in his own name.

2. On the first point we agree with the District Judge that the muchilika, Exhibit A is valid and binding on the temple as it was taken in accordance with the usual practice of the temple by the managing trustee in the names of both the trustees. Though the ordinary rule is that when there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust and that one trustee cannot delegate any of his duties to his co-trustee, yet the delegation in the regular course of business is not improper. Compare Sections 47 and 43 of the Indian Trusts Act, which state the principles though they do not apply to the present case. As it is shown that in the ordinary course of business, the leases of the plaint temple properties were arranged by the managing trustee on behalf of both the trustees, the muchilika Exhibit A executed in accordance with that practice, the other trustee not objecting, must be held to be valid.