RAMASWAMY IYER Vs. SUPPALU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the decision of Madhavan Nair J. in second appeal confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge reversing the decision of the Munsiff. The first matter for consideration is the interpretation of Ext. A1; and the second question is whether S.11 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the case.

(2.) Ext. A1 of 1074 is captioned a trust deed; and the executant thereof, Subrahmania Pattar of Kundoor Kuttala Madom, creates a trust by the same. The document recites that the executant had already constructed a temple and installed therein the idol of Guruvayurappan in 1071; and had also constructed an oottupura (feeding house) and other accessory buildings and Brahmins and Gosayees were being fed. Then follows the recital that the properties mentioned in the document with the buildings and other improvements thereon are dedicated to Guruvayurappan. The recital continues that from 1075 onwards the income of the properties after payment of Government revenue, etc., has to be utilised for meeting the expenses of the pooja, (worship) and the feeding at the oottupura, in addition to an annuity of 60 paras of paddy to Krishna Sastrigal and another 36 paras of paddy to Subrahmania Pattar, both of Parli Gramom, as they were vaideek (learned in the vedas) Brahmins, to protect their 'vaideek vrithi' and also to enable them and their families to enjoy the same. One more recital to be noted is that the executant was already paying these annuities as charity from the income of the properties; and that the same should be continued in the future also.

(3.) The appellants are the heirs of Krishna Sastrigal and they claimed arrears of annuity due to them. The Trial Court allowed their claim and granted a decree for sale of the properties. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decree; and the same was confirmed in second appeal by Madhavan Nair J. Our learned brother observes: