MAHAMAYA DEBI Vs. HARIDAS HALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Take the question of estoppel first.

(2.) It does not arise at all. A former abuse of trust cannot be pleaded against a trustee who seeks to prevent a repetition of that abuse, even if he were formerly implicated in the same indefensible course against which he is seeking to protect the trust property: Juggut Mohini v. Sokheemoney (1871) 14 Mad. I. A. 289 : 17 W. R. 41, 44. and Mallika v. Ratanmani (1897) 1 C. W. N. 493.

(3.) What do yon say as to the case of Doe v. Horne (1842) 3 Q. B. D. 760, 766 : 61 R. R. 397. In that case the mortgagors were empowered to raise money on mortgage, while here the palms cannot be alienated.