G SUBASHINI Vs. P LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants, who were successful in the trial Court, but defeated in the appellate Court, are the appellants in this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit relates to a trust created by one Kankipati Kanniah Chetty in 1847, whereby he endowed two items of immovable properties, one situated in Third North Beach Road, Madras and another in Kaladipet, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District. One Pasumarthy T.Krishnasamy Chetty was the trustee in 1925 and by his will dated 21.8.1925, he appointed his wife Pasumarthy Venkamma alias Sriranganacharamma along with three others as executors and trustees to administer the trust. He also directed the executors-cum-trustees to discharge the debt of Rs.1,913 due to him by the trust. His will was duly probated in O.P.-No.183 of 1927 on the file of this Court. After some time, Sriranganacharamma became the sole trustee on account of the departure of the other trustees from this world. She found that the trust properties were in a bad state of repair and could not yield sufficient income either for the performance of the charities or for the liquidation of the debts due to Krishnaswamy Chetty referred to earlier. She entered into an agreement with one Bysani Krishnayya Chetty that she would appoint him if he paid a sum of Rs.1,650 in full satisfaction of the debt due to her late husband Krishnasamy Chetty. Consequently, a transfer deed was brought into existence on February.2. 1931 in and by which Bysani Krishnayya Chetty became the trustee after payment of Rs.1,650 to Sriranganacharamma. He was administering the estate upto 1938 when he transferred his rights of trusteeship to his son Bysani Rangayya Chetty under a deed of transfer dated 4th May 1938. THE said document is marked as Ex.B2. Under the said deed, Bysani Sundaramma was directed to manage the trust estate in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and the specific directions and terms contained in the will of Pasumarthy Krishnasamy Chetty.

(3.) IT will be necessary to extract certain portions of the plaint as most of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants revolved round the same. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the plaint read thus: