KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU Vs. SVARNIKALINGAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been argued at considerable length, but the points of law which have been raised are really quite straightforward and covered by authority. The suit was brought by two creditors to recover money from Sri Subramaniaswami temple at Perambur represented by the trustees who are Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The cause of action is the execution of a simple money bond, Ex. A, for Rs. 5,800 on the 15 November 1911, by a former trustee, Mutha Pillai, who is now dead. Ex, A consolidates certain prior promissory notes, Ex. B series. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that Mutha Pillai had no power to borrow money on behalf of the devasthanam and that these debts had not been proved to be either necessary or beneficial to the devasthanam. The District Judge reversed the decree of the Sub-Court and granted a decree for the sum claimed with interest recoverable from temple properties in the hands of the defendants.

(2.) The first question is whether the bond, Ex. A, created any liability against the temple. This must be determined from the wording of the document itself and without reference to oral evidence. The suit bond is signed by Mutha Pillai who styles himself as the panchayatdar of Sri Subramaniaswami temple. He contracted as follows: As the said temple has received the sum of Rs. 5,800 as per particulars given above, I shall pay the same to you with interest at-10 annas per cent, per mensem from this date, each year's interest being payable on the 15 November of the same year. I shall pay the principal on or before 15 November 1925, get an endorsement of payment upon this and take this back.

(3.) This is followed by certain undertaking as to what is to, happen if the principal and interest are not paid on the due date. It is signed " Mutha Pillai, panchayat " and witnessed by three witnesses. On the face of it, this document creates a personal liability against Mutha Pillai. There are no express words creating a charge on the income of the temple or its properties. The District Judge states in his judgment that a consideration of the evidence leaves the impression that what the parties intended was that payment should be made out of the temple funds, that temple funds alone should go in liquidation of the debt, and that a charge was intended to be created. As I have said, the intention of the parties must be gathered from the document and here not only are there no words making the trust liable, but the presumptions are all against that being the intention of the parties. I observed in Palaniappa Chettiar V/s. Shanmugham Chettiar [1918] 41 Mad. 815 that there is a presumption that when a trustee signs a promissory note, he intends to incur an individual responsibility, because he does not represent any other person in law. What was said there about a promissory note holds good also for a bond in the term of Ex. A, in which the executant personally undertakes to pay what is due. In Swaminatha Aiyar V/s. Srinivasa Aiyar Abdul Rahim, J., and I held that when a trustee borrows money for purposes of a trust upon a promissory note, the creditor cannot be given decree charging the amount against the trust property. We observed that it would be clear injustice to pass a decree making the property liable for the debt when the creditor lent money on the personal security of the trustee.