RUSTAMJI HEERJIBHAI Vs. COWASJI DADABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was an originating summons filed by one trustee against his co-trustees for the determination of the following question:-- Whether the defendants should not be ordered to execute a deed of appointment appointing Dinshaw D. Romer as a trustee of the premises mentioned in the deed of declaration dated June 6, 1919, referred to in the plaint in place and stead of Cowasjee Maneckjee Rustomjee deceased.

(2.) At the hearing of the summons the second defendant was absent, while counsel appeared for the plaintiff , the first and third defendants respectively. The answer to the question was that the defendants were bound to execute a deed of appointment. The costs of plaintiff and third defendant as between attorney and client were to come out of trust funds, and the first defendant was directed to bear his own costs.

(3.) From that judgment the first defendant appealed. He made the plaintiff and the second and third defendants respondents. At the hearing of the appeal the second defendant was absent while separate counsel appeared for the plaintiff and the third defendant. The appeal was dismissed with costs.