RAMADAS DAMODER Vs. ANNA NIDHIYIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of the plaint schedule property, and alternatively for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are Trust properties. The plaintiff further requested the court to frame a scheme for the proper management and utilisation of the income of the plaint schedule property on the basis that it is Trust property.

(2.) THE plaint reveals, that the suit property originally belonged to Ranched Das Khathsee. Ranched Das Khathsee is the grand-father of the plaintiff. Ranched Das Khathsee died in February 1920. Some of the properties of Ranched Das Khathsee came into the possession of the plaintiff's father Damodar Ranched Das under a will of Ranched Das Khathsee. Damodar ranched Das has three sons, plaintiff is one of the sons. Damodar Ranched Das died on 2-1-1962. THE two brothers of plaintiff died in 1967. THE will of Ranched Das Khathsee is exhibited in the suit as Ext. A-1. It is dated 26-7-1095. THE plaint property is an item of property included in the will Ext. A-1. According to the plaintiff this item was set apart by plaintiff's grand-father for the purpose of certain charities to be done by plaintiff's father. THE plaintiff came to know of this Will only very late. By the time the plaintiff came to know about this will, the property in question was sold by the plaintiff's father to the father of defendants 1 to 3. THE sale was on 27-5-1100. THE sale deed is Ext. A2. THE case of the plaintiff is that this sale deed Ext. 2 is invalid in so far as the properties sold under Ext. A2 are Trust properties and plaintiff's father had no right to alienate the property. On these facts the plaintiff wants recovery of the property alternatively a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are Trust properties and a declaration that the sale deed Ext. A2 is invalid.

(3.) THE defendants also submitted that the suit property is not a Trust property. THE recitals in the will, will convince the court that the property is not at all impressed with any obligation of Trust. On these facts the defendants wanted the court to dismiss the suit with costs.