CHETTIKULAM SRI EKAMBARESWARASWAMI AND DHANDAYUDAPANI SWAMI TEMPLES REPRESENTED BY SOLE TRUSTEE DEVAROYA REDDIAR Vs. VEERAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of this petition is a promissory note executed by one T. D. Palaniappa Mudaliar in favour of the respondent for Rs. 200 on 22nd March, 1933. Palaniappa Mudaliar describes himself in the body of the note as manager of a certain temple in Chettikulam, and states further that he has borrowed the money "for the preliminary expenses of the Panguni Uttiram festival in the said temple", but he has executed the note in his own name, and there is a personal covenant to repay without any reference to the temple funds, such as is found in the note with which I have dealt in Ekambara and Dandayudhapani Swami Temples v. Arunachala Goundar . The Respondent sued in due course upon this note and has obtained a decree against both Palaniappa Mudaliar personally and the properties of the temple. This is a petition on behalf of the temple in which its liability under the note is contested.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is supported by direct authority which if it has not been overruled and cannot be distinguished is binding upon me. That authority is the decision of a Bench of this Court--Swaminatha Aiyar V/s. Srinivasa Aiyar (1916)32 M.L.J. 259. The headnote runs as follows: Where a trustee borrows money for purposes of the trust by executing a promissory note, the creditor is not entitled to a decree charging the amount due under the promissory note against the trust property.

(3.) And in the body of the judgment it is categorically stated that all that the creditor obtained was a promise on the part of the executant of the note to pay the debt. That statement, in my opinion, certainly applies to the facts of the present case, and unless respondent can show that Swaminatha Aiyar V/s. Srinivasa Aiyar (1916)32 M.L.J. 259, is no longer good law, the petitioner here is entitled to succeed. Respondent's learned. advocate has cited a number of rulings, but has not been able to convince me that I can refuse to follow Swaminatha Aiyar v. Srinivasa Aiyar (1916)32 M.L.J. 259.