SHEORAM Vs. RAMBHAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO attempt has been made before me by the respondent to show that the conclusion of the lower Court that there is a clear indication in the defendant's acts that he wants to thwart the authority of the other trustees and assume the supreme power to himself is in any way unwarranted or unjustified. It is said that this kind of attitude on the defendant's part was due to a bona fide belief that he was entitled to call himself a hereditary trustee and as such had the preferential or exclusive right of management of the trust property, but that since the defendant has now disabused his mind of that impression he should be given a chance to show that he can work smoothly if allowed to remain on the Board of trustees.

(2.) LOOKING to the antecedent history of the trust, as laid down in Mahomed Ismail Ariff v. Ahmed Noola Dawood A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 132. I think, the defendant had reasonable grounds to think that his voice could reign supreme in the management of the trust, and that he could do every thing according to his own wishes without consulting plaintiff 1 or the other trustees. No doubt there was this failure to consult his co-trustees in the past, but the plaintiffs have not been able to show that this exclusive management was attributable to any corrupt motives on the defendant's part, because the lower Court has very correctly pointed out that no misapplication of the trust money is brought home to the defendant. All that is proved against him is, if I may so put it, his vanity which prevented him in the past from associating himself with the other co-trustees. But for that alone he ought not to be visited with an absolute expulsion from the management of the trust property. It would be a very disproportionate punishment for his failures. I think under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the defendant, should have a probationary period wherein he could show his own readiness to act in co-operation with the other co-trustees so as to make the working smooth and unobjectionable in any way and thus ensure the interests of the trust and its property.

(3.) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct that each party shall bear his own costs of this Court. Costs in the Court below will be costs in the cause.